The veteran's minor children, Crystal and Sean, are seeking an apportioned share of the veteran's VA compensation benefits due to their lack of residency with the veteran and the veteran not reasonably discharging his responsibility for their support. The RO granted a $141 per month apportionment based on additional disability compensation received solely on account of Crystal and Sean.
The deciding factor: The veteran failed to provide financial information requested in connection with the appeal, which may have misled him into believing that VA was precluded from granting more than the additional amount of disability compensation received by his children.
- Claimed conditions
- unknown
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- April 23, 2001
- Citation
- 0111734
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0111734.
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the Veteran's eligibility for a Level 2 stipend under VA's PCAFC is in dispute due to insufficient medical review regarding his need for supervision, protection or instruction on a continuous basis. The case is being remanded for further evaluation.
- Denied
The VA correctly calculated and paid retroactive compensation benefits to the Veteran for the period from May 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025. The appeal is denied as additional retroactive VA compensation is not warranted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the issue on appeal should be characterized as entitlement to additional dependency compensation for P. J. C., the Veteran's minor child, and has found a pre-decisional duty to assist error in not including information or evidence from SSA regarding the disputed SSN provided by the Veteran.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's challenges to the creation and validity of her overpayment debt. The overpayment was found to be properly created, but the amount was recalculated based on a one-year period from October 2, 2019, to October 31, 2020. The waiver claim for recoupment of the overpayment was denied due to fault of both parties and potential financial hardship.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.