Citation Nr: 21076787 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 17-41 814 DATE: December 27, 2021 REMANDED The issue of whether an overpayment of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation benefits in the amount of $814.50, for the removal of stepchild, M., on July 16, 2012, is valid, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1997 to January 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2014 decision. In August 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a hearing. A copy of the transcript is associated with the record. The issue of whether an overpayment of VA compensation benefits in the amount of $814.50, for the removal of stepchild, M., on July 16, 2012, is valid, is remanded. The claim must be remanded to clarify the amount of the debt owed. By way of history, the Veteran was married to his second spouse in February 2009. In March 2009, he submitted VA Form 21-686c, Declaration of Status of Dependents, to add his second spouse and stepchild, M. At the time of submission, the Veteran had been receiving VA compensation benefits for service-connected disabilities that exceeded 30 percent, effective January 20, 2005. Since his combined disabilities rating exceeded 30 percent, he may receive an additional amount of compensation payable for a dependent or dependents as per 38 C.F.R. § 3.4(b). In April 2009, VA informed the Veteran that he would be paid VA compensation benefits at a rate for a veteran with three dependents, effective February 13, 2009, and at a rate for a veteran with four dependents, effective March 18, 2009, with the latter date established as the date evidence to confirm the dependents was received. Many years later, in June 2013, the Veteran informed VA that he divorced his second spouse and requested removal of his second spouse and his stepchild M. from being counted as dependents. He submitted a divorce decree that showed the date of separation as July 15, 2012. The date of divorce was May 3, 2013. Thereafter, VA adjusted his compensation benefits and informed him in September 2013 that his second spouse and M. were removed from his award as dependents, effective June 1, 2013. In that letter, VA informed him that an overpayment was created. In September 2013, the Debt Management Center (DMC) informed the Veteran that his debt totaled $735.00. One month later, the Veteran submitted a copy of a receipt showing that he paid the entire amount online. VA sent the Veteran a second letter in September 2013 that requested additional information on when he stopped supporting M. as a dependent. The second letter informed him that if this information was not received, then VA proposed to reduce his benefits by removing M. effective March 2009, the date M. was added to his award, to June 1, 2013, the first day of the month after the divorce was final. In October 2013, the Veteran informed VA that the date of separation was July 15, 2012, that he did not agree with the proposed reduction in benefits but did agree that "an action should occur with" his second spouse and stepchild M. from August 2012 to April 2013. See October 2013 VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim. Subsequently, in March 2014, VA informed the Veteran that his stepchild, M., was removed from his award amount, effective July 16, 2012, the date of separation. As a result, the Veteran would now be paid at the rate for a veteran with two dependents. As a result of removing M., an overpayment would be created because VA was paying for a dependent. In April 2014 correspondence, the DMC informed the Veteran that he was paid $814.50 more than he was entitled to receive. At the hearing before the undersigned, the Veteran testified that he did not dispute the date VA selected, July 16, 2012, as the date his stepchild, M., was removed from his award. The Veteran testified that he did not continue providing support to M. after that date. Rather, he testified that he did not understand how VA reached the amount of $814.50, because he paid an earlier $735.00, overpayment that was mentioned in the September 2013 DMC letter. The Veteran has disputed the amount of the debt. Specifically, he challenges the calculation of the overpayment because he did not understand how the $814.50 overpayment was calculated and had no idea of the amount of any overpayment he supposedly owed. A Veteran has the right to dispute the existence and amount of the debt. 38 C.F.R. § 1.911(c). In determining whether a waiver of overpayment is appropriate, VA must first determine if the overpayment at issue was validly created. See Schaper v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 430 (1991). To date, how the amount of the debt was calculated has not been provided to the Veteran. Further, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) has not addressed his argument that he already paid the debt back in September 2013. Therefore, on remand, a paid and due audit should be performed, specifying the dollar amount of the debt due and how the amount was calculated, as the Veteran has requested. Moreover, the AOJ should explain whether or not the debt in the amount of $814.50, should that be the final overpayment amount, is the same or different as the one the Veteran paid in full in September 2013. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Provide the Veteran an audit of his account in writing, which clearly shows the exact amount of the overpayment created; the calculation of the overpayment; and the date VA stopped the dependent benefits for his former stepchild, M. A copy of the audit should be placed in the Veteran's claims file. 2. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal (the amount of the overpayment debt). The Veteran should be informed of the determination as to the calculation of any indebtedness, whether his debt, if any, is the same or different from the September 2013 debt in the amount of $735.00, and should be apprised of his appellate rights as they pertain to such determination. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Tang, 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.