Citation Nr: 21022694 Decision Date: 04/19/21 Archive Date: 04/19/21 DOCKET NO. 18-07 052 DATE: April 19, 2021 REMANDED The issue of validity of overpayment debt from a retroactive reduction in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation due to removal of a dependent spouse is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1970 to April 1979. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 VA Debt Management Center (DMC). The Veteran, through his attorney, initially requested a Board hearing in the February 2018 VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board. In a November 2020 correspondence, the Veteran’s attorney withdrew the hearing request. The Veteran was inadvertently scheduled for a hearing in March 2021 that was cancelled. Accordingly, the Veteran’s hearing request is considered withdrawn and no further action regarding a hearing is necessary. The record shows C.S. was added as the Veteran’s spouse dependent effective from October 1, 2010. In November 2016, the Veteran submitted VA Form 21-686c, Declaration of Status of Dependents, informing the Regional Office (RO) that he divorced C.S. on June 12, 2012, and thus the Veteran requested removal of C.S. as the Veteran’s dependent spouse. The Veteran also informed VA that he married D.S. in June 2015. In a November 2016 notification letter, VA informed the Veteran C.S. was removed as a dependent spouse effective from July 1, 2012, the first day of the month following the Veteran’s divorce, and D.S. was added as the Veteran’s dependent spouse effective from December 1, 2016. VA also informed him that removal of C.S. from July 1, 2012, created an overpayment. A December 2016 letter from the DMC informed the Veteran that an overpayment in the amount of $8,461.00 was created. In December 2016, the Veteran requested a waiver. In April 2018, the DMC granted a partial waiver in the amount of $3,061.00, on the basis that the Veteran was married to D.S. since June 2015, and thus the Veteran was entitled to some of the benefits and recouping the payments while he was married to D.S. defeats the purpose of the dependency benefits. Therefore, the DMC explained that the Veteran is responsible for the remaining balance of $5,400.00, as the Veteran was at fault due to his delay in reporting his divorce to C.S. and subsequent marriage to D.S. In a November 2020 correspondence, the Veteran’s attorney contends that the RO failed to provide a calculation of how it arrived at the overpayment amount of $8,461.00, and requested a detailed breakdown, to include the period of overpayment. The attorney also asserts that the Veteran is responsible only for the overpayment amount created from July 2012 through July 2015, the period that the Veteran was not married. It appears that the Veteran’s attorney has not received a copy of the April 2018 DMC letter that granted the partial waiver. Here, although the DMC has granted a partial waiver in consideration of the time period the Veteran was married to D.S., given the attorney’s request for a detailed audit accounting the overpayment amount, and such information is also necessary to address the propriety of the adjusted overpayment amount of $5,400.00, a remand is necessary to provide the Veteran and his attorney an audit accounting of the overpayment amount. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Send the Veteran’s attorney a copy of the April 2018 DMC letter that granted the partial waiver in the amount of $3,061.00. 2. The agency of original jurisdiction should prepare a complete audit of payment of compensation benefits to the Veteran for the period from October 2010 to December 2016. This audit should reflect, on a month-by-month basis, the amounts of compensation actually paid to the Veteran with a full explanation of the calculations made to arrive at the amounts in question, to particularly include the additional dependency benefits paid for C.S. and D.S. and the amounts offset due to the Veteran’s marriage to D.S. in June 2015. A copy of the written audit should be associated with the claims file and also provided to the Veteran and his attorney. A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Sarah Campbell, 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.