Citation Nr: 21071994 Decision Date: 12/02/21 Archive Date: 12/02/21 DOCKET NO. 15-30 332 DATE: December 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1972 to June 1976. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 decision which, in pertinent part, denied entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits on the basis of excessive income. In November 2020, the Board remanded the matter for further development, to include obtaining information relevant to his income from the Veteran and the Social Security Administration. Entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits is remanded. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits at this time. Initially, the Board notes that the September 2013 decision on appeal indicates that the Veteran's claim for pension benefits was received on July 2, 2012. While the record contains an application for compensation benefits on July 2, 2012, the record does not contain an application for pension benefits on this date. A handwritten note on a September 2012 Duty to Assist letter from "K.C.," which appears to be a VA employee who worked on the Veteran's claims, notes that nonservice-connected pension was added to the Veteran's claims because it was not addressed when the Veteran claimed it in May 2010. A review of the record shows that on May 18, 2010, the Veteran submitted a claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits by filing VA Form 21-527 (Income and Net Worth Statement). However, VA only adjudicated the Veteran's pension claim from July 2, 2012, the date of his claims for compensation benefits. As such, remand is required so that VA can adjudicate in the first instance the Veteran's pension claim from May 18, 2010. In November 2020, the Board remanded the matter for further development, to include asking the Veteran complete and return the appropriate forms to report his income and medical expenses. VA was also to request information from the Social Security Administration (SSA) on the Veteran's benefits from that agency. In letters dated in January 2021, February 2021, April 2021, and May 2021, VA requested SSA verify the Veteran's monthly entitlement rates, payment rates, and SMIB rates, along with effective dates for the entirety of the Veteran's period of entitlement to SSA benefits. To date, no response has been received. In letters dated in November 2020, January 2021, April 2021, and May 2021, VA asked the Veteran to complete and return Improved Pension Eligibility Verification Reports and Medical Expense Reports. To date, no response has been received. While SSA Inquiries document the Veteran's SSA benefit amount from 2010 to 2012 and from 2019 to 2020, the Board's review of his appeal is frustrated by the record's absence of any information on the Veteran's income from 2013 through 2018. As such, the Board finds that a remand is warranted for an additional attempt to obtain this information. The Board emphasizes that the duty to assist is a two-way street, and the Veteran cannot sit idly by when his participation is necessary for the development of evidence in his case. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) (noting the duty to assist is a two-way street that requires a claimant's active participation in a claim for VA benefits). The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Verify with the Social Security Administration the amount of the Veteran's benefit from 2013 to 2018 and associate the information with the record. 2. The AOJ should request that the Veteran complete and return the appropriate forms for reporting his income, net worth, and medical expenses for the appeal period from May 18, 2010 to the present. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated, the Veteran's claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Owen, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.