Citation Nr: 21007020 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 06-35 788 DATE: February 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a waiver of overpayment of VA dependency benefits in the amount of $1,426.00 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1974 to February 1976 and December 1980 to October 2000. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2006 decision of the Committee on Waivers and Compromises (Committee). In that decision, the Committee denied the Veteran’s request for a waiver. In June 2010 and in August 2015 the Board remanded the case for additional development of the record and issuance of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). 1. Entitlement to a waiver of overpayment of VA dependency benefits in the amount of $1,426.00 In August 2005, the Veteran filed a request for a waiver of an overpayment of VA dependency benefits. The claim was denied in March 2006. In June 2010, the Board remanded the claim for consideration of evidence not previously considered by the RO. More specifically, in the June 2010 remand, the Board explained that new evidence pertinent to the Veteran’s claim for waiver of overpayment had been received in November 2006, after the March 2006 Committee’s decision to deny the waiver had been issued. The Veteran had submitted a Certificate of Credits from his child’s secondary school that included proof of completion of courses from August 2003 to September 2004. This evidence was not submitted with a waiver of Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) review. Accordingly, the Board remanded the claim for the RO to consider whether the new evidence was timely filed, and if so, whether it warranted an allowance of the claim. The remand directed the RO to readjudicate the issue on appeal, and, to issue a SSOC if the decision on remand remained adverse to the Veteran. The RO did not thereafter readjudicate the claim; yet, the appeal was sent back to the Board. As noted in the previous Board remand of August 2015, a November 2011 e-mail from the San Juan Regional Office (RO) to the Board, indicates that a SSOC was issued in November 2011. However, as of the date of this decision, no SSOC has been associated with the Veteran’s claims file addressing this issue. Notably, a closer reading of that email exchange reflects that it took place in July 2014 RO. It indicates that the SSOC issued in November 2011 was initially incorrectly coded in VA records locator system (VACOLS) as pertaining to the overpayment issue, but in fact, it was issued to address other issue on appeal. This is consistent with a review of the file which shows that an SSOC was issued in November 2011 addressing the issues of increased ratings for a service-connected psychiatric disorder and service-connected hypertensive heart disease. Based on the above, no SSOC was issued regarding the waiver issue in November 2011. Therefore, the August 2015 remand was issued so that the prior June 2010 remand instructions could be fulfilled. Following the Board’s August 2015 remand, the RO addressed numerous other claims, including several increased rating claims, a TDIU claim, and a helpless child claim; however, no action was taken to address the overpayment appeal. Nevertheless, the record contains an April 2020 Deferred Rating Decision issued by a Decision Review Officer (DRO) requesting that the VSO review the BVA remand dated August 2015. In short, the RO has not yet substantially complied with the directives set forth in the June 2010 or August 2015 remands. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Once again, on remand, the RO must ensure that all documents and evidence relevant to the Veteran’s request for a waiver of overpayment of VA dependency benefits is associated with the Veteran’s claims file, and then readjudicate the claim. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Following any development deemed necessary, including a review of any pertinent evidence received since March 2006, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim for a waiver of overpayment based on the entirety of the evidence. This should include whether the Certificate of Credits that was submitted in November 2006 was timely filed, and if so, whether that evidence warrants an allowance of the claim. Please note, this is the Board’s third request for this action. See June 2010 and August 2015 Board remands. 2. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative must be issued a SSOC. An appropriate period of time must be allowed for response. L. B. CRYAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Labi, Associate 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.