Citation Nr: 21029959 Decision Date: 05/17/21 Archive Date: 05/17/21 DOCKET NO. 16-14 564 DATE: May 17, 2021 REMANDED Propriety of the release of funds withheld from the Veteran for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who had verified active duty service in the Air Force from October 1965 to October 1969 and had subsequent service in the Air Force Reserve from October 1969 to October 1971 and in the Air National Guard of Rhode Island from September 10, 1981 to December 31, 2002. During his service as a Reservist/Guardsman, in addition to various periods of inactive duty for training, he had the following periods of verified active duty: August 14, 1990 to June 21, 1991 (Active Duty for Training); October 6, 1992 to February 13, 1993 (AGR, Active Guard Reserve, tour); August 31, 1993 to November 30, 1993 (AGR tour); November 10, 1999 to September 15, 2001 (AD, Active Duty); and October 24, 2001 to March 31, 2002 (AD). This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) administrative determination. In June 2019, a videoconference hearing was held before the undersigned. In August 2019, the Board remanded the case to the RO for additional development. As noted by the Board in the prior remand, the Veteran's claim for a waiver of recovery of a VA overpayment, to include the propriety of the creation of the debt has not been adjudicated by the RO. Therefore, it is not before the Board and is referred to the RO for appropriate action. Propriety of the release of funds withheld from the Veteran for FY 2001 In its August 2019 remand, the Board directed that the RO obtain records from the VA's Debt Management Center (DMC) in relation to the Veteran's account including overpayments that were created and any debt reductions. From electronic email correspondence, it appears that in December 2019, January 2020, and September 2020, the RO attempted to comply with the remand instruction, but the record does not show a response to the request. Furthermore, the December 2020 supplemental statement of the case issued to the Veteran does not show that any records from the DMC were received. As there has not been substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand directive, another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In response to the Board's remand directive, the RO, prepared an audit of the Veteran's account and sent a copy of it to the Veteran in March 2020 and October 2020. The audit shows the amounts of VA compensation benefits due and paid to the Veteran for the requested period (and beyond, both preceding and subsequent to such period) including debts and reductions of the debts, and reflects the amounts withheld (and when) due to the Veteran's drill pay for FY 2001. Since receipt of the audit, the Veteran has not responded with any further comments about the matter on appeal. It was his contention, in statements and testimony, that he was "charged" twice regarding the calculations related to the withholding of funds for FY 2001. The audit does not support his contention; however, after obtaining any additional documents from DMC, the RO should re-review the audit and determine if any change is warranted. If so, the RO should issue the Veteran a revised audit. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Secure for the claims file all records from the VA's Debt Management Center pertaining to the Veteran's account beginning in November 1999, including overpayments created and any reductions in the debt. The efforts to obtain the records, to include any negative responses, should be documented in the file. 2. After the receipt and inspection of any additional DMC records, review the audit (prepared in March 2020) of the Veteran's compensation benefits account for the period of November 10, 1999 through March 2002, and determine if any amendments are necessary in light of the DMC documents. If so, prepare an amended audit. Then, provide the Veteran a copy of the audit and afford him an opportunity to respond George R. Senyk Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Debbie Breitbeil, 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.