Citation Nr: A25035609 Decision Date: 04/17/25 Archive Date: 04/17/25 DOCKET NO. 250320-527228 DATE: April 17, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance (SMC(L)) is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT The March 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) was improper as to the claim for entitlement to special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance and no basis for waiver of the relevant claims processing rules, to include good cause for an extension of the time limit, exists. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria are met for dismissal of the claim for entitlement to special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance based on failure to follow the relevant claims processing rules. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.109, 20.202, 20.203, 20.1103. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran was on active duty in the United States Navy from June 1964 to October 1964. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2025 VA Form 10182. The Veteran purported to appeal a March 2024 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran's case has been advanced on the docket. The Board finds such a motion represents a waiver of the Veteran's right to change docket lanes under Williams v. McDonough. 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024). The Board therefore finds the Veteran has waived his Williams rights and wishes a decision on the merits to issue. Entitlement to special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance is dismissed. In short, the Board is dismissing this appeal because it was not properly perfected. The Board notes that one year has not yet elapsed from the AOJ's March 2025 rating decision related to entitlement to SMC(L). If the Veteran still intends to pursue an appeal, he should consider properly appealing the March 2025 rating decision in a timely manner. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to identify the specific determination with which the claimant disagrees. 38 U.S.C. 7105(d). In March 2025 the Veteran filed the relevant VA Form 10182; however, the Veteran purported to request review of a March 2024 rating decision. There is no such rating decision, and more than one year has elapsed since the date the Veteran listed on his VA Form 10182. The appeal is therefore improper. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b) (requiring that a notice of disagreement (NOD) be filed within one year from issuance of notice of the decision); 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c) (if no NOD is filed within the prescribed period, the decision of the AOJ will become final). VA received the VA Form 10182 on March 20, 2025. This was more than one year after the March 6, 2024, date listed on the VA Form 10182. Thus, the signed VA Form 10182 was not timely and was improper. 38 U.S.C. § 20.203(b). While the one-year deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b) to file an NOD is not a jurisdictional bar to the Board's review of a claim, "it is an important and mandatory claim-processing rule." Ferko v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 262, 265 (2024). In this case, the Veteran has failed to follow the claims processing rules, including the general timeliness requirement of 38 U.S.C. § 7105. There is no basis upon which this requirement should be waived, to include good cause for an extension of the time limit under 38 C.F.R. § 3.109(b). Thus, dismissal of the claims is warranted. Hall v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 329 (2021) (while the Board has jurisdiction to hear an appeal that is not in conformity with the relevant claims processing rules, it may dismiss nonconforming filings in appropriate circumstances if it explains its reasons for doing so); Dunham v. McDonough, No. 23-3014, 2024 U.S. App. Vet Claims LEXIS 418 (Mar. 26, 2024) (mem dec) (Falvey, J.) ("We have held that the Board can enforce the requirements for an NOD, but that "[i]f it dismisses [a veteran's] claim, the Board should identify the governing law, any formal defects in the appeal, whether waiver or forfeiture is a relevant consideration, and any other relevant factors") (citing Hall, 34 Vet. App. at 334); Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 252, 254 (1992) (single judge decisions may be relied upon for any persuasiveness or reasoning they contain). The Board does note that the Veteran used the language of the March 2025 rating decision in his VA Form 10182. Even so, the Veteran did not list the date of the March 2025 rating decision, instead referencing March 2024. The Board finds that the VA Form 10182 does not create ambiguity as to which decision the Veteran wanted to appeal; language from a rating decision for which the appeal period has not elapsed does not cure his improper and untimely appeal. For the above reasons, the evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether the Veteran's March 2025 VA Form 10182 was timely. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against a finding of timeliness. The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), is therefore not for application as to this matter. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side, or the other is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). The Board notes that one year has not yet elapsed from the AOJ's March 2025 decision. If the Veteran still intends to pursue an appeal, he should consider properly appealing the March 2025 decision in a timely manner. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Devin White 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.