Citation Nr: 25007455 Decision Date: 06/02/25 Archive Date: 06/02/25 DOCKET NO. 22-00 011A DATE: June 2, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability compensation is denied. FINDING OF FACT The parties were divorced at all times during the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability compensation have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5307; 38 C.F.R. § 3.450, 3.451, 3.452, 3.453, 3.458, 3.503, 3.667. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1986 to August 1994 and from August 1994 to November 2006. The appellant is the ex-spouse of the Veteran seeking apportionment on her own behalf. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2017 administrative decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A claim for an apportionment is a "contested claim" and is subject to special procedural regulations. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100, 19.101, 19.102; see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.500-20.504; 20.713. Specifically, 38 C.F.R. § 19.100 provides that, in a simultaneously contested claim, all interested parties are to be notified of the action taken by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) and of the right and time limit for initiating an appeal, as well as notification of the right to a hearing and representation. Upon the filing of a notice of disagreement (NOD), all interested parties will be furnished a copy of the statement of the case (SOC). 38 C.F.R. § 19.101. When a substantive appeal is filed (Form 9), the content will be furnished to the other contesting parties to the extent that it contains information which could directly affect the payment or potential payment of the benefit which is the subject of the contested claim. 38 C.F.R. § 19.102. The record shows the AOJ complied with the procedural regulations with respect to the appellant. Notice of the decision was sent to the appellant in July 2017. The Statement of the Case (SOC) was sent to the appellant in November 2018 and then possibly again in January 2022, upon the appellant's complaint that she did not receive the one in November 2018. Although the procedural requirements were not satisfied as to the Veteran, the error is harmless given the outcome of this decision. A hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2024, then postponed until September 18, 2024. The appellant requested that the September 2024 hearing be rescheduled. However, on September 6, 2024, a Veterans Law Judge found that good cause had not been presented to reschedule the hearing. Neither party attended the September 2024 hearing. Accordingly, no further hearing is necessary. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100, 19.101, 19.102; see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.500-20.504; 20.713. Entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability compensation The appellant asserts that she is entitled to an apportionment of the Veteran's disability compensation because the parties' divorce decree awards her a certain percentage of the Veteran's military retired pay and/or the concurrent retirement and disability pay (CRDP) of the Veteran. She asserts that she is entitled to "back-pay" dating from January 1, 2016, because the Veteran has intentionally withheld payments from her. All or any part of the compensation payable on account of any Veteran may be apportioned if the Veteran is not residing with his spouse or children, and the Veteran is not reasonably discharging his responsibility for the spouse's or children's support.? 38 U.S.C. § 5307(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.450?(a)(1)(ii). The "benefit-of-the-doubt rule" rule does not apply in apportionment cases because it is impossible to give the benefit of the doubt to a veteran and a claimant simultaneously. Elias v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 259 (1997). In this case, the appellant's claim for apportionment was received by VA in July 2017. The appellant submitted a divorce decree showing the parties were divorced in June 2013. The appellant has not been eligible for apportionment since June 2013, the date of divorce. The appellant argues that it took VA a year and a half to provide her with the correct form to file for an apportionment. Regardless, even a year and a half earlier, the appellant would not have been eligible for an apportionment because she was divorced. The Board is sympathetic to the appellant's argument that the Veteran has not been complying with the terms of the parties' divorce decree. However, apportionment is not a mechanism for enforcing the terms of divorce decrees or other state court orders. The Board acknowledges that the appellant made numerous due process and fraud arguments in her January 2022 VA Form 9 Substantive Appeal. The Board does not have jurisdiction to review those claims, and they should be directed to the appropriate authority, such as any office on fraud, waste, and abuse, or any existing VA Inspector General. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Rocktashel, 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.