15-10 120
This text of 15-10 120 (15-10 120) 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
15-10 120, (bva 2016).
Opinion
http://www.va.gov/vetapp16/Files6/1644937.txt
Citation Nr: 1644937 Decision Date: 11/30/16 Archive Date: 12/09/16 DOCKET NO. 15-10 120A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Providence, Rhode Island THE ISSUE Whether a request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of death pension benefits in the amount of $11,744.50 was timely filed. WITNESSES AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL Appellant and her son ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Orfanoudis, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active duty service from September 1942 to November 1945. He died in September 2002. The appellant is his surviving spouse. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arose from an April 2014 decision in which the Committee on Waivers and Compromises (COW) of the RO, denied the appellant's claim for a waiver of recovery of the overpayment of improved death pension benefits on the basis that her request for waiver was not timely filed. In May 2014, the appellant filed a notice of disagreement (NOD). In December 2014, the appellant and her son testified during a telephone hearing conducted by an individual identified as a hearing officer and COWC member; A transcript of that hearing is of record. Thereafter, a statement of the case (SOC) was issued in March 2015, and the appellant filed a substantive appeal (via a VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals) in March 2015. In July 2016, the appellant and her son testified during a Board video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with his claims file. During the hearing, the undersigned granted a 60-day abeyance period, following the hearing, for the submission of additional evidence. To date, no additional evidence has been received. The Board notes that the Veteran's claims file has been converted into a paperless claims file via the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) and Virtual VA paperless, electronic claims processing systems. All records in such files have been reviewed. Also, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket, pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2014) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2015). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All notification and development action needed to fairly adjudicate the claim herein decided has been accomplished. 2. In June 2011, the appellant was informed that VA had reduced her benefits due to a change in her countable income/net worth, creating an overpayment in the amount of $5,924.00. 3. In a June 23, 2011, letter and attached Notice of Rights and Obligations, the appellant was notified of an overpayment of Compensation and Pension benefits, of the right to request a waiver of recovery of the overpayment, and of the 180-day time limit to request such a waiver. 4. In June 2012, Social Security Administration Inquiry Data revealed that the appellant received more Social Security benefits than she had previously reported. 5. In June 2012, the appellant was informed that VA proposed to reduce her benefits due to the change in countable income/net worth; she was given 60 days to provide evidence and/or argument opposing the reduction. 6. In July 2012, the RO received correspondence from the appellant's son requesting a hearing on her behalf. 7. In September 2012, the appellant was informed that VA had reduced her benefits due to a change in her countable income/net worth, creating an additional overpayment in the amount of $5,280.50. 8. The appellant filed a request for waiver of overpayment of improved death pension on March 4, 2014, more than 180 days after notification of the overpayment at issue. CONCLUSION OF LAW As the request for a waiver of overpayment filed on March 4, 2014, was not timely filed, VA may not address the merits of the waiver request.. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5302 (a) (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 1.911, 1.963 (2015). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION I. Due Process Considerations At the outset, the Board notes that the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (codified at 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, and 5126 (West 2014) includes enhanced duties to notify and assist claimants for VA benefits. VA regulations implementing the VCAA were codified as amended at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, and 3.326(a) (2015). In this appeal, the appellant has been advised of the bases of the denial of her claim, and afforded the opportunity to present information and evidence pertinent to the claim. The Board finds that these actions satisfy any fundamental due process owed the appellant. As will be explained below, as the request for waiver was untimely, VA cannot address the merits of the waiver request. As the law, and not the facts, is dispositive of the claim, the duties to notify and assist imposed by the VCAA are not applicable. See Mason v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 129, 132 (2002). See also Manning v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 534, 542-543 (2002) (the provisions of the VCAA have no effect on an appeal where the law, and not the underlying facts or development of the facts are dispositive in a matter). As for the 2016 Board hearing, it is noted that, in Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488 (2010), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2) impose two distinct duties on VA employees, including Board personnel, in conducting hearings: (1) to explain fully the issue(s), and (2) to suggest the submission of evidence that may have been overlooked. Here, the Board finds that, consistent with Bryant, there has been substantial compliance with the duties set forth in 38 C.F.R. 3.103 (c)(2), and that the hearing was legally sufficient. During the hearing, the undersigned identified the issue on appeal and explained the basis for denial of the appellant's waiver request. Also, the hearing transcript reflects appropriate exchanges between the appellant's son and the undersigned concerning the sequence of evidence of events following the initial notice of proposed reduction of the appellant's pension benefits (discussed in more detail, below), as well as the bases for the son's belief as to why the waiver request should be considered timely filed, Additionally, the appellant was offered an opportunity to ask the undersigned questions regarding her claim for waiver of recovery of the overpayment. Although the undersigned did not explicitly suggest the submission of any specific, additional evidence, on these facts, such omission was harmless. As noted, the record was held open for 60-days following the hearing for the submission of additional evidence. That notwithstanding, nothing at the time of the or since gave rise to the possibility that there was any outstanding, existing pertinent evidence. Notably, the appellant has not asserted that VA failed to comply with the duties addressed in Bryant, and has not otherwise identified any prejudice in the conduct of the Board hearing. II. Timeliness of the Waiver Request The appellant has requested waiver of recovery of an overpayment of VA death pension benefits in the amount of $11,744.50.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Mason v. Principi
16 Vet. App. 129 (Veterans Claims, 2002)
Manning v. Principi
16 Vet. App. 534 (Veterans Claims, 2002)
Walter A. Bryant v. Eric K. Shinseki
23 Vet. App. 488 (Veterans Claims, 2010)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
15-10 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/15-10-120-bva-2016.