Citation Nr: 25005332
Decision Date: 04/21/25	Archive Date: 04/21/25

DOCKET NO. 25-00 035A
DATE: April 21, 2025

REMANDED

Entitlement to an increased rate of apportionment from the Veteran's Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation benefits to the appellant from December 2006 to February 2021 is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1966 to December 1973. He has been in receipt of a total disability rating for VA compensation purposes since December 1999.  

The Appellant, Y. L., is the Veteran's former spouse. Initials will be used in the remainder of this decision for privacy purposes. The full names of the parties, although listed on the first page and in the document header, are not disclosed in publicly viewable copies of this decision.

As a point of clarification, the parties recently appeared before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge to present testimony in December 2024. A transcript of that testimony is considered as evidence in this appeal. 

A separately perfected appeal as to the termination of the apportionment is adjudicated under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) and is the subject of a separate decision to be issued on that matter at or near the time of this decision. 

For this claim, the relevant apportionment decision was issued in June 2008, and awarded an apportionment to the Appellant in the amount of $139 per month from December 1, 2006, to December 1, 2007, and then in the amount of $142 per month from December 1, 2007, to March 1, 2021. The Appellant filed a timely notice of disagreement with the June 2008 apportionment decision in August 2008 in which she stated that she disagreed with the amount of the apportionment that had been awarded.

To date, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) has not issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) addressing the issue of the amount of the apportionment awarded. Therefore, a remand is required solely for the AOJ to comply with the necessary procedural requirements and issue a Statement of the Case. 38 C.F.R. § 20.904(c); Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). An appeal as to that issue regarding the amount of the apportionment that was awarded is not perfected for further adjudicative action unless and until a party to this claim submits an additional form to perfect an appeal. Instructions to seek an appeal if either party disagrees with the determination of the SOC will be included with the SOC.   

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

Send the Appellant, the Veteran, and any authorized representative(s) of either party, a Statement of the Case that addresses the issue of the amount of the apportionment that was awarded from 2006-2021. If a party to this appeal (either the Veteran or Y. L.) perfects an appeal as to the issue of the rate of apportionment that was awarded by submitting a timely appeal of that decision, the issue should be returned to the Board for 

?

further appellate consideration, or otherwise addressed by the AOJ as necessary.  

 

S. CHARLES NEILL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	K. McDonald

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.