Citation Nr: 21024455 Decision Date: 04/22/21 Archive Date: 04/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-29 993 DATE: April 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has failed to meet his evidentiary burden of providing requested financial information for purposes of establishing entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an award of nonservice-connected pension benefits have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1521 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.3, 3.21, 3.23, 3.271, 3.272, 3.277 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active naval service from July 1972 to August 1975. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a July 2015 decision which terminated the Veteran’s nonservice-connected pension benefits on the basis of excessive income. In July 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing. A copy of the transcript is of record. In September 2020, the Board remanded the issue currently on appeal to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. Entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits is denied. The Veteran seeks to establish entitlement to non-service-connected pension benefits. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1521(a), non-service-connected disability pension is a benefit payable to a veteran of a period of war who is permanently and totally disabled from non-service-connected disability not the result of his own willful misconduct. A veteran is entitled to pension only if his income is not in excess of the applicable maximum annual pension rate (MAPR), as specified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.23 and changed periodically, as reported in the Federal Register. See 38 U.S.C. § 1521. The maximum rates for a veteran’s pension are reduced dollar for dollar by the amount of the countable income of a veteran, his spouse, and any dependent(s). 38 U.S.C. § 1521; 38 C.F.R. § 3.23(d). Pursuant to the September 2020 Board remand, the AOJ sent the Veteran a notice letter in September 2020 requesting that he provide his income and net worth information for 2016, 2017, and 2019, as well as information pertaining to any unreimbursed medical expenses he may have incurred in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. In October 2020, the Veteran reported that he had no income in 2016 and 2017, and that he was estranged from his spouse. See October 2020 VA Form 21P-0516-1. An October 2020 VA Form 21-0820 reflects that the Veteran reported that he was estranged from his spouse, and that he lived in the basement of his sister-in-law’s house. The AOJ then sent the Veteran a notice letter in October 2020 requesting that he provide the date of his separation from his spouse, and verify that he had not financially contributed to his spouse since the date of separation. A November 2020 VA Form 21-0820 reflects that the Veteran reported that he was separated from his wife on November 15, 2015, and that they had not supported each other ever since. See also November 2020 VA Form 21-4138 (showing the Veteran’s reports that he separated from his wife on November 14, 2015, due to incompatibility and that he had not financially contributed to her since the date of separation). The AOJ sent the Veteran a notice letter in November 2020 noting that VA treatment records showed that he had reported that he was living with his spouse and her sister, that his spouse’s wages were the household income, and that he had a good support system from his spouse. See also June 2017 and February 2020 VA treatment records. A November 2020 VA Form 21-4138 shows that the Veteran reported that his spouse was not the sole provider, that her sister and her daughter shared expenses, and that her daughter had three children that he helped with in exchange for help from her. The AOJ sent the Veteran a notice letter in December 2020 requesting further clarification. Specifically, the AOJ requested that the Veteran clarify whether he was being compensated for providing care to his stepdaughter’s children, as well as clarify the actual date of separation from his spouse given the conflicting information outlined above. The December 2020 notice letter also requested that the Veteran provide updated household income and expense information for calendar years 2016 onward. The Veteran was advised that failure to provide a complete response may result in a denial of the requested benefits. As a condition of granting or continuing pension, VA may require from any person who is an applicant for or a recipient of pension such information, proofs, and evidence as is necessary to determine the annual income and the value of the corpus of the estate of such person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.277(a). The Board notes that, to date, the necessary information with respect to the Veteran’s income, net worth, and unreimbursed medical expenses, as requested in the December 2020 notice letter, has not been received. His failure to provide the requested information makes it impossible for VA to determine his eligibility. The Veteran has a duty to aid VA in developing his claim. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) (noting that the duty to assist is not a one-way street; if a claimant wishes help in developing her/his claim, s/he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where s/he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining putative evidence). Because the Veteran did not respond to VA’s request for additional information, the Board is constrained to find that he has not met his evidentiary burden in connection with his claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits, as he has not provided the requisite financial information. Under the circumstances, the Board must find that the claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits is without legal merit. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Ragheb, 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.