The veteran's spouse is seeking an increase in the amount of her apportionment benefits, which are currently set at $200. The RO denied this claim because it found that the appellant's monthly expenses exceed her income and thus a grant of increased apportionment would cause undue hardship on the veteran.
The deciding factor: The financial status of both the appellant and the veteran was not fully established, leading to an inability to determine if granting increased apportionment would cause undue hardship on the veteran.
- Claimed conditions
- Not specified in this decision
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 15, 2004
- Citation
- 0406700
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 0406700.
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
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.