Citation Nr: 21005475 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 20-04 862 DATE: February 1, 2021 REMANDED The issue of the propriety of the creation of a debt in the amount of $13,399.62, to include whether disability severance pay was properly recouped, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Navy from June 1986 to September 1987 and from April 1990 to February 1999. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2018 action of a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As an initial matter, there appears to be some confusion in the record with respect to what issue specifically is on appeal. In his notice of disagreement, the Veteran contended that an accounting error had occurred in the October 2018 RO action and requested an audit of his account. The Statement of the Case characterizes the issue as one for recoupment of severance pay. In his substantive appeal, the Veteran stated that in fact what had happened was that the October 2018 action reflected a retroactive cost of living adjustment extending into his original recoupment period and resulted in VA remitting to him $13,399. That is the amount he states VA now seeks to, in effect, claw back. Finally, the Veteran’s representative has contended in the December 2020 brief that the issue presented to the Board is the denial of a waiver of recoupment of severance pay. Pursuant to the Veteran’s request, VA appears to have obtained an audit of his recoupment payments and account in April 2019. That audit indicates the historic recoupment amounts that were purportedly withheld from the Veteran’s payments as well as what should have been recouped. Curiously, this recoupment schedule does not match the recoupment withholding amounts from a notification letter from 2011. The Veteran was first notified of his grant of compensation in an October 2002 letter. At that time, his total award amount was $488 per month, and his monthly withheld amount to recoup his disability severance pay was $199. This withholding amount does match the amount identified in the April 2019 audit for the period from May 2002 to December 2002. However, due to a change in the Veteran’s dependents, VA issued an additional notification letter informing him of the effects of those changes in a March 2011 letter. While the April 2019 audit indicated that the amount withheld from the Veteran’s compensation had significantly increased in June 2009 from $243 to $601, the March 2011 notification letter indicated the Veteran’s withholding beginning February 2011 was only $243 per month and would continue at that rate through July 2018. Similarly, while the March 2011 notification letter clearly appears to contemplate ongoing withholdings through 2018, the April 2019 audit indicated recoupment had been completed in March 2013. Given these discrepancies, it is unclear the extent to which the April 2019 audit report contains an accurate representation of the actual monthly disbursements and withholdings with respect to the recoupment of the Veteran’s disability severance pay. It is similarly unclear what specific action actually took place that resulted in the October 2018 notification letter on appeal and the creation of the $13,339 debt that now appears to be in dispute. A remand is required to gain further clarity in these matters. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: In light of the discrepancies between the March 2011 letter regarding the Veteran’s severance recoupment withholdings and the April 2019 audit, conduct an additional audit of the Veteran’s historical compensation and withholding for recoupment of his disability severance pay, to include an audit of how the $13,339 debt was created. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Whitelaw, 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.