Citation Nr: A25106975
Decision Date: 12/11/25	Archive Date: 12/11/25

DOCKET NO. 250205-521014
DATE: December 11, 2025

ORDER

Entitlement to survivor's benefits including special monthly pension (SMP) based on the need of aid and attendance or being housebound is denied.  

FINDING OF FACT

New and relevant evidence was not received with the appellant's August 2024 Supplemental Claim VA Form 20-0995 following an April 2023 denial of SMP.  

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to payment of VA survivor's pension benefits have not been met.  38 U.S.C. § 1541; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.3, 3.23, 3.271, 3.272.  

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1969 to December 1979.  He died in November 2019 and the appellant is his surviving spouse.  

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2024 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  

Previously, the AOJ had denied survivor's pension in April 2023, and VA provided notification of the denial again in August 2023.  

In February 2024, the appellant submitted a Supplemental Claim for "death pension" and the same month, the AOJ informed her that survivor's pension had been denied in August 2023.  

In August 2024, the appellant filed a Supplemental Claim for pension.  In November, the AOJ denied aid and attendance based and noted there had been no new and relevant evidence from the previous denial of pension in April 2023.  

In disagreement with the November 2024 denial, the appellant filed a VA Form 10182 appeal to the Board.  In her VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the appellant elected the Direct Review docket.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the AOJ decision on appeal.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.301.  Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801.  

If the appellant would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, she may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.  If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered.  Id.  Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.  

Survivor's SMP based on aid and attendance is denied.

In the November 2024 Notification Letter (the decision on appeal), the AOJ wrote: 

"Since we did not receive any new and relevant evidence from you in support of your claim, the denial of Survivors Pension Benefits for excess income decision letter dated April 19, 2023 is still in effect."  

Under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), if new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to a supplemental claim, the Secretary shall readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record.  38 U.S.C. § 5108(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 3.2501.  New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators.  38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1).  Relevant evidence is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issue and includes evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed.  38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1).

The appellant's claim for SMP was previously denied in the April 2023 decision.  She filed a supplemental claim in August 2024.  The appellant did not submit any additional evidence or argument with respect to her claim along with her supplemental claim.  

(Continued on the next page)

?

If the appellant has new evidence supporting her claim for SMP, she is encouraged to submit that evidence with a Supplemental Claim as outlined above.  

As the record currently stands, however, there is no new and relevant evidence to warrant the readjudication of the claim.  38 U.S.C. § 5108(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 3.2501.  Thus, the appeal is denied.

 

 

T. Raymond

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Kuczynski, B.

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.