Citation Nr: 21026366 Decision Date: 04/30/21 Archive Date: 04/30/21 DOCKET NO. 17-28 466A DATE: April 30, 2021 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to the proceeds of the Veteran’s National Service Life Insurance (NSLI) policy is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from March 1992 to April 1993. The Veteran died in March 2016. The appellant in this case is the Veteran’s father. This appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) arose from an August 2016 determination by the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Insurance Center of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that K.A. (full name C.K.A.) was the designated beneficiary of record and that, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the proceeds of the Veteran’s NLSI policy. The appellant disagreed with that determination and subsequently perfected an appeal to the Board. The instant matter was then previously before the Board in August 2020, at which time it was remanded for the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to ensure that the procedural requirements governing simultaneously contested claims were complied with in this appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100, 19.101, 19.102, 20.500-20.504, 20.713. As discussed in that action, the only communication of record to C.K.A. regarding the claim of entitlement to the proceeds of the Veteran’s NSLI policy is a January 2017 letter informing him of a delay in settling his claim. The Board noted that C.K.A. had not been provided with a copy of the statement of the case (SOC) or with the contents of the appellant’s substantive appeal, as required by 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.101 and 19.102. The Board thus remanded the matter, directing the AOJ to contact the interested party (C.K.A.) by telephone or mail to adequately notify him of the contested claim and provide him with a copy of the SOC and the contents of the appellant’s substantive appeal. A review of the record fails to reveal that the AOJ undertook any action responsive to the Board’s remand directive regarding compliance with the procedural requirements for governing simultaneously contested claims. Indeed, in a February 2021 supplemental SOC (SSOC), the AOJ mentions only contact with the Veteran. Additionally, there is no indication that the SSOC was sent to K.A., or that K.A. was provided with any other notice or required document. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that a remand by the Board confers on a veteran, as a matter of law, a right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA “a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand.” Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270 (1998). The Court has indicated, additionally, that if the Board proceeds with final disposition of an appeal, and the remand orders have not been complied with, “the Board itself errs in failing to ensure compliance.” Id. Accordingly, because the actions undertaken by the AOJ do not comply with the terms of the Board’s prior remand directives, and because the Board is unable to adjudicate the merits of the appellant’s claim until the procedural requirements for governing simultaneously contested claims have been complied with, the Board finds that the matter must, again, be remanded. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: (Continued on the next page)   Review the claims file and send C.K.A. all notices, information, and documents required under by the contested claims procedure outlined in 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100, 19.101, and 19.102. K. Conner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Neilson, 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.