Citation Nr: 21014316 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 15-31 189A DATE: March 11, 2021 ORDER A fourth clothing allowance for the benefit year 2014 is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to one or more clothing allowances for the benefit year 2009. Entitlement to one or more clothing allowances for the benefit year 2010. Entitlement to one or more clothing allowances for the benefit year 2011. Entitlement to one or more clothing allowances for the benefit year 2012. Entitlement to one or more clothing allowances for the benefit year 2013. FINDING OF FACT During the benefit year 2014, the Veteran’s two Canadian crutches together tended to wear or tear his upper body clothing at an increased rate. See May 2014 Claim; August 2015 Notice of Disagreement. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a fourth clothing allowance for the benefit year 2014 are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1162, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.810. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from May 1968 to March 1971. This case comes before the Board on appeal from an August 2014 decision of a VA Medical Center in El Paso, Texas. Payment of an annual clothing allowance is warranted for any veteran who, because of a service-connected disability, wears or uses a prosthetic or orthopedic appliance which VA determines tends to wear out or tear the veteran’s clothing, or who, because of a skin condition due to a service-connected disability uses a physician prescribed medication that causes irreparable damage to the Veteran’s outer garments. 38 U.S.C. § 1162. Here, the Veteran was granted three clothing allowances for 2014 by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ), one each for wear and tear caused by his left leg prosthetic, right leg brace, and pair of Canadian crutches, issued due to his service-connected left knee joint amputation and loss of use of right foot. See August 2014 AOJ Decision. The Veteran contends that four clothing allowances are warranted under 38 C.F.R. § 3.810(a)(3), on the grounds that his Canadian crutches comprise two separate appliances and wear and tear his clothing at an increased rate. See March 2016 Veteran Statement. The Board agrees. 38 C.F.R. § 3.810(a)(3) states that a Veteran is entitled to two separate clothing allowances if the Veteran: “uses more than one prosthetic or orthopedic appliance . . . and the appliance(s) . . . [t]ogether tend to wear or tear a single type of article of clothing . . . at an increased rate of damage. . . .” There is no question as to whether Canadian crutches tend to wear or tear clothing. The VA Handbook 1173.15 (Clothing Allowance) lists “crutches” among “examples of items that tend to tear and wear clothing,” and the AOJ in fact granted a single clothing allowance below based on wear and tear due to the Veteran’s crutches. The only question is whether a pair of crutches warrants one allowance or two. The Veteran’s application for clothing allowances for 2014 indicates that his right and left Canadian crutches damage clothing on his right and left arm and flank, respectively. See May 2014 Claim. This represents damage that would be done to a single upper body garment, such as a shirt, undershirt, sweater, coat, or jacket. A single crutch would cause damage on one side, two crutches would cause damage to both sides, or twice as much damage. The Board finds that this constitutes an “increased rate of damage” under 38 C.F.R. § 3.810(a)(3). Therefore, because the Veteran’s right and left Canadian crutches together tended to wear or tear his upper body clothing at an increased rate during 2014, a fourth clothing allowance for the benefit year 2014 is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran submitted to the Board Notices of Disagreement (NODs) he previously submitted to the AOJ to contest clothing allowance decisions issued for the benefit years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. In addition, the record contains an undated notice letter from the AOJ to the Veteran in response to an NOD contesting a decision issued for the benefit year 2009 (this NOD is not itself of record). The Veteran contends that he never received a Statement of the Case (SOC) in response to any of these NODs. See March 2016 Veteran Statement. Nor does the record before the Board contain any SOCs in response to these NODs, or any evidence that they were issued. Therefore, a remand is necessary for the AOJ to issue the Veteran an SOC in response to each of these NODs. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Issue an SOC regarding the Veteran’s claims for clothing allowances for the benefit years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. If the benefits sought are not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be advised of the appropriate time limit to perfect an appeal. The issues should only be returned to the Board if an appeal is perfected. S.C. KREMBS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Timmerman, 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.