Citation Nr: 21009422 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 19-16 033 DATE: February 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection of ischemic heart disease is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection of peripheral neuropathy is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection of diabetes mellitus is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection of hypertension is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran died on January [REDACTED], 2021. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection of ischemic heart disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection of peripheral neuropathy have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 3. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection of diabetes mellitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 4. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection of hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from July 1970 to January 1976. He passed away in January 2021. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Dismissal 1. Entitlement to service connection of ischemic heart disease 2. Entitlement to service connection of peripheral neuropathy 3. Entitlement to service connection of diabetes mellitus 4. Entitlement to service connection of hypertension Unfortunately, the appellant died during the pendency of the appeal. As a matter of law, appellants’ claims do not survive their deaths. Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Smith v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 330, 333-34 (1997); Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42, 47 (1994). This appeal on the merits has become moot by virtue of the death of the appellant and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302. In reaching this determination, the Board intimates no opinion as to the merits of this appeal or to any derivative claim brought by a survivor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1106. In dismissing the Veteran’s claim, the Board acknowledges that on January 26, 2021, the Veteran’s surviving spouse filed a request for substitution as appellant on this appeal. The Board’s dismissal of this appeal does not affect the right of an eligible person to file a request to be substituted as the appellant for purposes of processing the claim to completion. Such request must be filed not later than one year after the date of the appellant’s death. See 38 U.S.C. § 5121A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(b). A person eligible for substitution includes “a living person who would be eligible to receive accrued benefits due to the claimant under section 5121(a) of this title ….” 38 U.S.C. § 5121A; see 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(a). An eligible party seeking substitution in an appeal that has been dismissed by the Board due to the death of the claimant should file a request for substitution with the VA office from which the claim originated. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(b). While the appellant’s request for substitution has yet to be adjudicated by the RO, the RO has been made aware of that substitution request. Should that request be granted, this appeal will be reactivated and returned to the Board for additional appellate review. 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. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Pryce, Counsel .