Citation Nr: 21011786
Decision Date: 03/02/21	Archive Date: 03/02/21

DOCKET NO. 16-62 853
DATE: March 2, 2021

ORDER

The appeal of entitlement to service connection for Alzheimer’s disease is dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

On February 10, 2021 the Board was notified that the appellant died in January 2021.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Due to the death of the appellant, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal at this time.  38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had service from January 1984 to March 1984, from July 1999 to June 2000, and from February 2003 to September 2003.

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.  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.

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.  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; 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).

(Continued on the next page)

 

The Board notes that a request for substitution of appellant was submitted in February 2021. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(e), the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) will decide in the first instance all requests to substitute, including any request to substitute in an appeal pending before the Board. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302(a), the case will assume its original place on the docket if the AOJ grants the request to substitute. If the AOJ denies the request to substitute and the person requesting to substitute appeals that decision to the Board, the appeal regarding eligibility to substitute will assume the same place on the docket as the original claim pursuant to Rule 900 (§ 20.900(a)(2)). As the AOJ has not yet acted on the substitution request, the appeal must be dismissed at this time.

 

 

H. SEESEL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	E. Romero-Sanchez, 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.