12-32 823

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedJanuary 9, 2015
Docket12-32 823
StatusUnpublished

This text of 12-32 823 (12-32 823) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Veterans' Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
12-32 823, (bva 2015).

Opinion

Citation Nr: 1504689 Decision Date: 01/09/15 Archive Date: 02/09/15

DOCKET NO. 12-32 823 ) DATE ) )

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pension Management Center at the Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota

THE ISSUES

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of receiving VA death benefits.

2. Entitlement to accrued benefits.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

C. L. Wasser, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1969 to November 1970. He had no foreign service. He died in August 2011. The appellant is claiming entitlement to VA death benefits and accrued benefits on the premise that she should be recognized as his lawful surviving spouse. She appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an April 2012 decision of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The claims are currently being handled by the St. Paul, Minnesota RO and Pension Management Center.

The Board notes that the appellant has contended that there was clear and unmistakable error in the April 2012 decision on appeal. There can be no valid claim of CUE in that decision, as that decision is currently on appeal and, thus, demonstrably not yet final and binding. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a). Any such assertion of CUE in the April 2012 AOJ decision is premature at this point in time.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. During his lifetime, in July 2011, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-527 (Income-Net Worth and Employment Statement), in which he listed the appellant as his spouse. The part of this form relating to the appellant's prior marriages is incomplete.

2. The Veteran died in August 2011.

3. In September 2011, a VA Form 21-534 (Application for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, Death Pension and Accrued Benefits by a Surviving Spouse or Child) was received from the appellant.

4. In March 2012, two VA Forms 21-686c were received from the appellant. These forms were incomplete with regard to her prior marriages. A subsequent VA Form 21-686c was also incomplete.

5. Despite repeated requests from the AOJ for evidence and documentation necessary to establish that she was the surviving spouse of the Veteran when he died, the appellant has not submitted the necessary information.

6. The appellant has not established that she bore the expense of last sickness and burial of the Veteran.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The appellant is not entitled to recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of entitlement to VA death benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101, 1304, 1310, 1311, 1318, 1541 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.50, 3.52, 3.53, 3.54, 3.204, 3.205, 3.206 (2014).

2. Entitlement to accrued benefits is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101, 5121 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.50, 3.1000(a) (2014).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Duties to Notify and Assist

As provided by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA), VA has duties to notify and assist a claimant in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2014). Proper notice from VA must inform the claimant of any information and medical or lay evidence not of record (1) that is necessary to substantiate the claim; (2) that VA will obtain and assist the claimant in obtaining; and (3) that the claimant is expected to provide. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1); see also Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 373-74 (2002).

Pre-adjudication notice was provided to the appellant in November 2011 and February 2012. The letters advised her that she must first establish her eligibility as a proper claimant for VA death benefits and accrued benefits. The February 2012 letter asked her to complete the enclosed VA Form 21-686c (Declaration of Status of Dependents).

In the April 2012 denial letter, the appellant was advised that she was not considered a surviving spouse for VA death benefits and accrued benefits purposes, because she had not provided all of the requested evidence. Additional notice was provided to the appellant in a July 2012 letter, and the claims were most recently readjudicated in a December 2012 supplemental statement of the case.

The appellant has received all essential notice, has had a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of the claims, and is not prejudiced by any technical notice deficiency along the way. See Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The letters, especially in combination, indicated the type of evidence and information needed to substantiate the claims and apprised the appellant of the appellant's and VA's respective responsibilities in obtaining this supporting evidence. As the pleading party attacking the agency's decision, the appellant, not VA, has the evidentiary burden of proof of showing there is a notice error in timing or content and that the error is unduly prejudicial, meaning outcome determinative of her claims. Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S. Ct. 1696 (2009). There is no such pleading or allegation in this instance.

Regarding the duty to assist, VA also satisfied this obligation in terms of obtaining all potentially relevant evidence concerning the claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. In the statement of the case and supplemental statement of the case, the AOJ again advised the appellant that her status as the "surviving spouse" had not been established because of missing documentation regarding the termination of her prior marriages, and the appellant has repeatedly declined to submit the necessary information or records. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) (holding that the duty to assist is not always a one-way street and if a Veteran desires help with his claim he must cooperate with VA's efforts to assist him).

In summary, the Board finds that it is difficult to discern what additional guidance VA could have provided to the appellant regarding what further evidence she should submit to substantiate her claims. See Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 165, 178 (2001) (en banc) (observing that "the VCAA is a reason to remand many, many claims, but it is not an excuse to remand all claims."); Reyes v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 113, 116 (1994); Soyini v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 540, 546 (1991) (both observing circumstances as to when a remand would not result in any significant benefit to the appellant).

Analysis

Governing law provides that VA death benefits, including Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) and death pension, may be paid to the surviving spouse of a veteran if certain requirements are met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1304, 1310, 1311, 1318, 1541 (West 2014).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Sanders
556 U.S. 396 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Quartuccio v. Principi
16 Vet. App. 183 (Veterans Claims, 2002)
Charles v. Principi
16 Vet. App. 370 (Veterans Claims, 2002)
Wood v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 190 (Veterans Claims, 1991)
Soyini v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 540 (Veterans Claims, 1991)
Aguilar v. Derwinski
2 Vet. App. 21 (Veterans Claims, 1991)
Sabonis v. Brown
6 Vet. App. 426 (Veterans Claims, 1994)
Sandoval v. Brown
7 Vet. App. 7 (Veterans Claims, 1994)
Reyes v. Brown
7 Vet. App. 113 (Veterans Claims, 1994)
Livesay v. Principi
15 Vet. App. 165 (Veterans Claims, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12-32 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/12-32-823-bva-2015.