Citation Nr: 22028417 Decision Date: 05/13/22 Archive Date: 05/13/22 DOCKET NO. 18-46 680 DATE: May 13, 2022 REMAND Entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 25, 2017, for the award of non-service connected (NSC) pension benefits with special monthly pension (SMP) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1946 to March 1948. He died in August 2017. The appellant is his surviving spouse. This appeal before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arose from an August 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which granted entitlement to NSC pension benefits with SMP, effective January 25, 2017. A February 2018 RO decision indicated that the appellant had been substituted for the Veteran in this appeal. In May 2018, the appellant requested that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) readjudicate the assigned effective date for the award of the Veteran's NSC pension benefits. In a June 2018 decision, the AOJ, in effect, reconsidered and continued to deny the claim for an earlier effective date for the award of NSC pension benefits. Effective date for the award of NSC pension benefits with SMP The appellant maintains that an effective date earlier than January 25, 2017, is warranted for the award of NSC pension benefits based on the late-Veteran's apparent submission of an Intent to File (ITF) received on January 26, 2016. While the evidence clearly indicates that the Veteran filed an ITF that was received in January 2016, a copy of the ITF form is not currently associated with the claims file. In this regard, a January 2016 AOJ letter noted the receipt of the ITF form; however, the notification letter indicated that the Veteran indicated on the form that he intended to file a claim for compensation benefits. The AOJ letter did not indicate that the Veteran had also filed an intent to file a claim for pension benefits. The appellant and her representative have specifically contended that the Veteran did not check either box on the ITF form indicating that he intended to file a pension claim or a compensation claim, but rather, that he left the boxes blank. While the appellant's representative purportedly submitted a copy of the ITF form, the Board notes that a form received in July 2018 was a copy of an ITF form submitted by the appellant in September 2017, in pursuit of her claim for survivor's (death) pension benefits or dependency and indemnity compensation. Thus, the Board again emphasizes that the record does not contain a copy of the Veteran's January 2016 ITF form. Review of the late Veteran's electronic claims file reveals that many documents associated with the file were not uploaded until October 2017 or later. Accordingly, as the appellant and her representative have contended that the Veteran's January 2016 ITF submission should have been rendered inadequate, where he reportedly did not identify the benefits sought, the Board finds that remand of the claim on appeal is prudent in order for the AOJ to search the late Veteran's paper claims file, and any other possible repository of records, for his January 2016 ITF form. Cf. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(c). Additionally, the AOJ should request that the appellant provide a copy of the ITF form that the late Veteran submitted in January 2016, if she still maintains a copy in her possession. Accordingly, this matter is hereby REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct a search of the late Veteran's paper claims file, and any other possible repository of records, to attempt to locate his Intent to File a claim for VA benefits which was filed in January 2016. Any additional records found should be associated with the electronic claims file. Additionally, the results of all searches conducted should be noted in the claims file. 2. Send a letter to the appellant and her representative requesting that she provide VA with a copy of the Intent to File form that the late Veteran submitted in January 2016, if still in her possession. 3. After completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, readjudicate the earlier effective date claim on appeal. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Wilson, 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.