Citation Nr: 21024269 Decision Date: 04/22/21 Archive Date: 04/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-39 553 DATE: April 22, 2021 ORDER An effective date earlier than November 12, 2014 for the award of additional compensation based on dependency of the Veteran’s spouse is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran first submitted a copy of the marriage certificate serving as proof of his marriage to Y.F. in November 2014. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date prior to November 12, 2014 for the award of additional compensation benefits based on dependency of the Veteran’s spouse have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1115, 1135, 5101, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.4, 3.151, 3.400, 3.401.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1967 to August 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 determination of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran and his spouse testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2021. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Effective Date A. Law An additional amount of compensation may be payable for a spouse, child, or dependent parent where a veteran is entitled to compensation based on disability evaluated as 30 percent or more disabling. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1115, 1135; 38 C.F.R. § 3.4(b)(2). An award of additional compensation for dependents based on the establishment of a disability rating in the percentage evaluation specified by law for that purpose shall be payable from the effective date of such rating, but only if proof of dependents is received within one year from the date of notification of such rating action. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(f). The effective date for the payment of additional compensation for dependents will be the latest of the following dates: (1) date of claim; (2) date dependency arises; (3) effective date of the qualifying disability rating provided evidence of dependency is received within 1 year of notification of such rating action; or (4) date of commencement of Veteran’s award. 38 C.F.R. § 3.401(b). The term “date of claim” means the following, listed in their order of applicability: (i) date of Veteran’s marriage, or birth of his or her child, or, adoption of a child, if the evidence of the event is received within one year of the event; otherwise (ii) date notice is received of the dependent’s existence, if evidence is received within one year of VA’s request. Id. With respect to the date of claim, a specific claim in the form prescribed by the VA Secretary must be filed in order for benefits to be paid to any individual under VA law. 38 U.S.C. §§ 501, 5101; 38 C.F.R. § 3.151. B. Analysis The Veteran was notified by a July 2015 letter that additional benefits based on the dependency of the Veteran’s spouse have been awarded effective November 12, 2014. On that date, the Veteran submitted VA Form 21-686c, Declaration of Status of Dependents, and a marriage certificate serving as proof of his marriage to Y.F. The commencement of payment of the award began December 1, 2014, which is the first day of the month following the November 2014 submissions of the claim and proof of dependency. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.401(b); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.31 (commencement of the period of payment). The Veteran disagrees with that effective date. He states that the effective date of the award should be January 1995, which is the effective date of the qualifying disability rating. See 38 U.S.C. § 1115; 38 C.F.R. § 3.4(b)(2). In that regard, he states he submitted proof of his marriage to Y.F. when he submitted his original application for service connection (VA Form 21-526) in January 1995. See February 2021 Hearing Transcript. He states that he believed the disability benefits and the additional award based on dependency of his spouse were being paid on one check. See id. When he realized he was not being paid the additional award based on dependency, he submitted the marriage certificate again. See id. He states he submitted it several times. See id. For the following reasons, the Board finds that the criteria for an effective date earlier than November 12, 2014 for the payment of additional compensation based on dependency of the Veteran’s spouse have not been met. Review of the record shows that the Veteran did not submit a marriage certificate prior to November 2014. His statement that he submitted a marriage certificate together with his VA Form 21-526 in January 1995 is not sufficient to establish the fact. In this regard, there is a presumption of regularity in the administrative process whereby it is assumed that government officials “have properly discharged their official duties.” United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926); Romero v. Tran, 2021 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 78 (No. 19-3687). The presumption may only be rebutted by “clear evidence to the contrary.” Schoolman v. West, 12 Vet. App. 307 (1999). The Board finds that the presumption of regularity applies to whether the marriage certificate would have been associated with the claims file at the time the Veteran submitted his VA Form 21-526, or would otherwise have been acknowledged or processed by VA. There is no evidence that its practices have been irregular in this respect, or that it did not follow its regular practices. See Romero, supra. Indeed, the record affirmatively supports a finding that VA did not receive the marriage certificate when the Veteran filed the VA Form 21-516. Following the June 1995 rating decision that granted disability benefits qualifying him for additional compensation based on dependency of his spouse, a June 1995 letter notified him of that decision and states: “To receive additional dependency allowance, please send us a copy of your marriage certificate[.]” The fact that VA requested a copy of the marriage certificate indicates that it had not previously been submitted to VA. Even if the Veteran believed at the time of notice of the June 1995 rating decision that he had already submitted the marriage certificate, the June 1995 letter effectively informed him that VA did not have it, and that he needed to submit it in order to receive the additional dependency compensation. He did not respond to that letter or submit the marriage certificate. To the extent his testimony is intended to suggest that he did submit the marriage certificate within a year of that letter, the presumption of administrative regularity again comes into play: the Board presumes based on the absence of a copy of the certificate in the file prior to November 2014 that VA did not receive it prior to that time. There is no evidence showing that VA did not follow its regular practices with regard to processing proof of dependency or associating such proof with the file, or that its practices have been irregular in either respect. See Boyd v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 63, 71-72 (2014). Thus, the mere assertion that the marriage certificate was previously submitted is not sufficient to constitute clear evidence rebutting the presumption. See id. Accordingly, the Board finds that VA did not receive proof of dependency with respect to the Veteran’s spouse within one year of the June 1995 rating decision, or within one year of the June 1995 letter notifying him that a copy of his marriage certificate must be furnished in order to receive additional dependency compensation. As the record shows that he first submitted the marriage certificate on November 12, 2014, the effective date of the award of increased compensation based on dependency could be no earlier than that date. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.401(b)(1). As an earlier effective date must be denied as a matter of law based on the date of receipt of the marriage certificate, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See Sabonis v. West, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994); 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Rutkin, 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.