Citation Nr: 21073538 Decision Date: 12/09/21 Archive Date: 12/09/21 DOCKET NO. 18-06 828 DATE: December 9, 2021 REMANDED Whether the request for a waiver of an overpayment in the amount of $2,147.39 for educational assistance benefits under 38 Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill) was timely received is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from June 2005 to January 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2017 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Committee on Waivers and Compromises (COWC) at the Debt Management Center. In this decision, the COWC found that the Veteran's request for a waiver of overpayment was not timely received. Pursuant to the Veteran's request in his January 2018 VA Form 9, a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge was scheduled for March 2021. He did not appear and no good cause for missing the hearing was provided. The request is thus deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.603(d). In May 2021, the Board remanded the current issue on appeal for additional development. However, since the requested development has not been completed, further action to ensure compliance with the remand directives is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Whether the request for a waiver of an overpayment in the amount of $2,147.39 for educational assistance benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill is remanded. A remand by the Board confers on the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Failure of the Board to ensure compliance with remand instructions constitutes error and warrants the vacating of a subsequent Board decision. Id. The Board remanded this appeal in May 2021 so that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) could (1) obtain a copy of a December 14, 2015 DMC notification letter reflecting an overpayment of education benefits in the amount of $2,147.39, and (2) readjudicate the issue on appeal. In November 2021, the AOJ returned the appeal to the Board. The basis of VA's denial of the Veteran's request for waiver of an overpayment for educational assistance benefits is that he did not timely file a waiver request. That is, he did not file a waiver of indebtedness within 180 days of being notified by the DMC of the indebtedness. 38 C.F.R. § 1.963. In denying his waiver request, the DMC informed the Veteran that he had been notified of his debt on November 30, 2015 and the increase on December 14, 2015 along with the right to request a waiver and the 180-day time limit for filing an application for waiver. The record shows that the Veteran's waiver request was not received until September 2016. The record includes a copy of the November 2015 DMC notification letter, which informed the Veteran that he had a debt in the amount of $32.09. However, the Veteran contends that he never received the December 2015 letter reflecting an increase in his debt. Importantly, the record does not include a copy of the December 2015 DMC notification letter. Furthermore, the December 2017 statement of the case (SOC) refers to the Centralized Accounts Receivable On-line System (CAROLS), which is used by the DMC, to indicate that the Veteran was sent the November 2015 and December 2015 notification letters; but, the SOC did not discuss that those letters were part of the record. The purpose of the DMC notification letters is to inform the Veteran of the amount of the overpayment and his waiver rights, to include that he has 180-days in which to request a waiver. Currently, the record only shows that the Veteran was informed of his initial debt in the amount of $32.09 and does not reflect whether he was subsequently informed of the increase in the debt, which amounted to $2,147.39, along with his waiver rights. Given the above, the Board again finds that in order to make a fully informed decision regarding whether the Veteran was provided with adequate notice of the amount of his debt, his rights to dispute his debt, and/or request a waiver within the 180-day time limit, a remand is required to attempt to locate a copy of the December 2015 DMC notification letter. By returning the appeal to the Board without proper development, the AOJ did not substantially comply with the Board's May 2021 remand orders. See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008) (holding that only "substantial" rather than strict or exact compliance with the Board's remand directives is required under Stegall); accord Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999). The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Undertake the appropriate steps to obtain a copy of the December 14, 2015 DMC notification letter reflecting an overpayment of education benefits in the amount of $2,147.39. 2. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefits sought are not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, then the Veteran and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. (Signature on Next Page) N. PETTINE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Bilstein, 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.