Citation Nr: 21020759
Decision Date: 04/08/21	Archive Date: 04/08/21

DOCKET NO. 16-19 240A
DATE: April 8, 2021

ORDER

The issue of whether the termination in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation benefits for the purpose of recouping active duty pay was proper, is dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran has not submitted a VA Form 9 or Substantive Appeal appealing the July 2014 decision to the Board.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The issue of whether the termination of VA compensation benefits for the purpose of recouping active duty pay was proper is dismissed.  38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.101, 20.200, 20.202.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 2005 to December 2006.  

Dismissal

The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed.  38 U.S.C. § 7105.  

Analysis

In June 2007 and again in September 2007, VA denied the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.  In July 2014 and due to the Veteran’s return to active service, VA terminated his compensation benefits effective August 6, 2007.  The termination resulted in an overpayment.  In September 2014, the Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) disagreeing with the denial of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss, i.e., he disagreed with the fact that he did not receive a clinical audiological evaluation.  He also disagreed with the overpayment debt.  In its February 2014 Statement of the Case (SOC), VA confirmed its decision which denied the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.  VA also confirmed its July 2014 decision which terminated the Veteran’s compensation benefits.  In May 2016, the Veteran file a Substantive Appeal.  He acknowledged reading the SOC; however, he noted that he was only appealing the “lack of clinical evaluation for audiology exam.”

The Board has jurisdiction over appeals of questions of law and fact that involve entitlement to VA benefits, as well as to resolve questions of its own jurisdiction.  38 U.S.C. § 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.101, 20.103.  

Under VA regulations, an appeal consists of a timely filed written notice of disagreement (NOD) and, after a statement of the case (SOC) has been furnished, a timely filed substantive appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 19.20.  A substantive appeal consists of a properly completed VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals, or correspondence containing the necessary information.  Proper completion and filing of a substantive appeal are the last actions an appellant needs to take to perfect an appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 19.22.  The necessary information consists of specific arguments relating to errors of facts or law made by the AOJ in reaching the determination being appealed, and the arguments made are to be construed liberally.  Id.

As noted above, the Veteran did not file a Substantive Appeal appealing the July 2014 VA decision to the Board.  Additionally, other than notifying the Veteran that an appeal has been returned to the Board’s docket, VA has not led the Veteran to believe that an appeal of this issue was in appellate status or otherwise waived the ability to find that this issue on appeal has not been perfected.  See Percy v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37.    

Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed.  38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(5), 38 C.F.R. § 20.104, 20.202.

 

 

MICHAEL LANE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	T. Moore

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.