Citation Nr: 21074065 Decision Date: 12/14/21 Archive Date: 12/14/21 DOCKET NO. 19-24 967 DATE: December 14, 2021 REMANDED Whether the overpayment of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation benefits in the amount of $2,106.06 related to 97 National Guard drill days in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 was properly created is remanded. Whether the overpayment of VA compensation benefits in the amount of $7,121.54 related to the Veteran's return to active duty on January 3, 2016 was properly created is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty in the United States Navy from April 1998 to April 2002, and in the United States Army from June 2004 to April 2011, and from January 2016 to January 2017. The matters on appeal come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from the September 2016 decision by the VA Regional Office (RO) to assess a debt against the Veteran in the amount of $2,106.06 related to 97 National Guard drill days in FY 2015, and from a December 2016 decision by the RO to terminate the Veteran's VA compensation benefits effective January 3, 2016, the date he returned to active duty, which resulted in an additional $7,121.54 debt. The Veteran provided hearing testimony on these issues before the undersigned at a March 2021 hearing. During the course of this appeal, the Veteran has indicated that he does not feel these debts are valid. On his October 2017 notice of disagreement (NOD), the Veteran's representative documented the Veteran's report that he was not paid VA compensation during his period of active duty, such that no debt should have been created. October 2017 email communication shows the Veteran was attempting to clarify the debt amounts. More recently in September 2020, the Veteran called VA to clarify because he did not understand why the debt was so high. While the Veteran has not explicitly requested an audit in this case, he has made clear multiple times that he does not understand the amounts being collected and what they are for, as well as indicated a debt was improperly collected for benefits that were never paid. The record does not include a clear accounting of the overpayment debt. In order to afford due process to the Veteran, an accounting should be made, and the Veteran should be provided a clear, thorough explanation of the basis for the amount at issue in this appeal. Further, the RO should address his contention that he was never paid compensation benefits during his period of active service beginning in January 2016. Finally, the Board notes the Veteran filed a Financial Status Report (FSR) in October 2017 requesting a waiver. This waiver request has not been adjudicated. After the record is developed and the validity of the debts at issue is adjudicated, the Veteran's waiver request should then be referred to the appropriate committee for adjudication. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide an audit of the $2,106.06 debt related to National Guard drill days in FY 2015, and of the additional $7,121.54 debt related to active duty in 2016. The RO should clearly explain the amount of the overpayments and show how they were calculated. The RO should also address the Veteran's contention that he was not paid VA compensation during his period of active duty in 2016. A copy of the audit should be provided to the Veteran and his representative, and placed in the claims file. 2. After completing the above action, to include any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the action taken in the preceding paragraph, the Veteran's claims related to the validity of the debts at issue should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. 3. Once the validity of the debt questions are adjudicated, if a debt remains, the RO should refer the matter as appropriate for consideration of the waiver request submitted in October 2017. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Adamson, 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.