Citation Nr: 22016251 Decision Date: 03/21/22 Archive Date: 03/21/22 DOCKET NO. 21-00 595A DATE: March 21, 2022 ORDER An effective date of May 9, 2006, but not earlier, for the addition of the appellant as the Veteran's dependent spouse to his award of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran submitted a March 2003 claim for recognition of the appellant as his dependent spouse for VA purposes. 2. In a March 2007 rating decision, the Veteran was first awarded a combined disability rating of at least 30 percent, effective May 9, 2006. 3. In a July 2016 decision, VA first adjudicated the Veteran's March 2003 initial claim for recognition of the appellant as his dependent spouse for VA purposes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date of May 9, 2006, but not earlier, for the addition of the appellant as the Veteran's dependent spouse to his award of VA disability compensation have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1115, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.4, 3.114, 3.204, 3.400, 3.401 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the on active duty from June 1961 to January 1985. Unfortunately, he died in July 2018. The appellant is his surviving spouse and has been properly recognized as substitute claimant. See February 2021 decision notification letter. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a decision of a VA Regional Office (RO). The Board acknowledges the appellant requested a Board videoconference hearing in the June 2021 substantive appeal. Neither the appellant nor her representative have explicitly waived the appellant's request for a Board hearing. However, as this decision constitutes a full grant of the benefit sought, no prejudice to the appellant could result from this decision. The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Entitlement to an effective date prior to August 24, 2015 for the addition of the appellant as the Veteran's dependent spouse to his award of VA disability compensation. The appellant was added as the Veteran's dependent spouse to his award of VA disability compensation effective August 24, 2015. The appellant contends that an earlier effective date is warranted. Veterans who have service-connected disabilities rated as 30 percent disabling and higher may be entitled to additional compensation for dependents. 38 U.S.C. § 1115; 38 C.F.R. § 3.4(b)(2). When determining the effective date for an award of additional compensation for dependents, the effective date will be the last of the following dates: (1) the date of claim; (2) the date the dependency arises; (3) effective date of the qualifying disability rating provided evidence of dependency is received within a year of notification of such rating action; or (4) date of commencement of the service member's award. 38 C.F.R. § 3.401(b). The "date of claim" for additional compensation for a dependent spouse is the date of the Veteran's marriage, if evidence of the event is received within a year of the event; otherwise, the date notice is received of the dependent's existence, if evidence is received within a year of notification of such rating action. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.401. Under 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a), a specific claim must be filed in order for benefits to be paid or furnished to any individual under the laws administered by VA. See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). The Secretary has authority to prescribe the nature and extent of the proof required in order to establish a right to VA benefits. See 38 U.S.C. § 501. If a claimant's application for a benefit under the laws administered by the Secretary is incomplete, the Secretary shall notify the claimant and the claimant's representative, if any, of the information necessary to complete the application. 38 U.S.C. § 5102(b). If information that a claimant and the claimant's representative, if any, are notified under subsection (b) is necessary to complete an application is not received by the Secretary within one year from the date such notice is sent, no benefit may be paid or furnished by reason of the claimant's application. 38 U.S.C. § 5102(c). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a). In Sharp v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 267, 276 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the effective date for additional compensation for dependents shall be the same date as the rating decision giving rise to such entitlement, irrespective of any previous grant of section 1115 benefits, if proof of dependents is submitted within one year of notice of the rating action. While the Court held that there can be "multiple rating decisions that establish entitlement to additional dependency compensation," the Court still required that proof of dependent status be submitted within one year of notice of rating action. Id. Dependent compensation benefits were ultimately awarded to the appellant in Sharp on the effective date of the applicable rating increase. VA will accept, for purposes of determining entitlement to benefits under laws administered by VA, the statement of a claimant as proof of marriage, dissolution of a marriage, birth of a child, or death of a dependent, provided that the statement contains: the date (month and year) and place of the event; the full name and relationship of the other person to the claimant; and the social security number of the other person. 38 U.S.C. § 5124; 38 C.F.R. § 3.204. In March 2003, the Veteran submitted VA Form 21-526, Veterans Application for Compensation and/or Pension, indicating that he married the appellant in February 1971. The Board finds that this was the Veteran's initial claim for recognition of the appellant as his dependent for VA purposes. In a March 2007 rating decision, the RO increased the disability rating for service-connected diabetes mellitus to 20 percent, effective May 9, 2006, resulting in a combined disability rating of 30 percent, effective May 9, 2006. However, the RO did not adjudicate the Veteran's claim for recognition of the appellant as his dependent spouse for VA purposes. To the contrary, in the May 2007 decision notification letter, the RO informed the Veteran that he was being paid as a single veteran with no dependents and he should submit VA Form 21-686c if he wished to apply for dependents' benefits. In December 2015, the Veteran submitted a completed VA Form 21-686c, Application to Add and/or Remove Dependents. In a July 2016 decision, the RO recognized the appellant as the Veteran's dependent spouse and added her to his award of VA disability compensation, effective August 24, 2015. This was the first adjudication of this issue. After a careful review of the record, the Board finds that an earlier effective date of May 9, 2006 is warranted. Clearly, the Veteran submitted a claim for recognition of the appellant as his dependent spouse for VA purposes in March 2003. Unfortunately, this claim was not recognized and adjudicated by VA prior to the July 2016 decision. While the Veteran's initial claim as submitted in March 2003, the Veteran did not meet the requirements for an increased rating for dependents until May 9, 2006, the effective date of the initial award of a combined disability rating of at least 30 percent. For these reasons, and resolving all reasonable doubt in the appellant's favor, the Board finds that an effective date of May 9, 2006, but not earlier, is warranted for the addition of the appellant as the Veteran's dependent spouse to his award of VA benefits. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Thomas, 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.