Citation Nr: 21013539 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 16-30 074 DATE: March 9, 2021 ORDER Service connection for an eye disability, other than cataracts, is dismissed. Service connection for a skin disability, to include chloracne, is dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy is dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT On January 28, 2021, the Board was notified by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that the appellant died in January 2021. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Due to the death of the appellant, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of entitlement to service connection for an eye disability, other than cataracts. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302. 2. Due to the death of the appellant, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, to include chloracne. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302. 3. Due to the death of the appellant, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302. 4. Due to the death of the appellant, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1968 to October 1969, with service in Vietnam. The Veteran died in January 2021. The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in February 2019. The Board issued a decision in June 2019 and remanded these issues for further development. Following the Board’s June 2019 decision, the Veteran appealed the denial of entitlement to earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for coronary artery diseases to the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The Court affirmed the Board’s decision. Dismissal 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. 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). The Board notes that there is a request for substitution filed in February 2021. However, because the RO has yet to address this request for substitution, the Board must dismiss this case. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Ijitimehin, Kemi D. 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.