08-27 935, 08-27 935

Veteran served Aug 1961–Sep 1964; died Aug 2012. Appellant is his widow and seeks substitution to continue his appeal.
Original RO decision (May 2007) declined to reopen PTSD claim (no new and material evidence) and denied service connection for residuals of a left foot injury; Veteran appealed before death.
Veteran testified at a hearing in Aug 2010; Board remanded in Oct 2010 for additional development, including record searches and consideration of a 1984 name change.
After the Veteran’s death, appellant filed a DIC/accrued benefits application (Oct 2012) and requested substitution; Board dismissed the appeal due to death but reserved substitution issues for the AOJ.
Board determined it lacks jurisdiction to decide basic eligibility for substitution and referred that issue back to the AOJ; substantive claims are deferred pending resolution of substitution eligibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether new and material evidence reopens PTSD claim and, if so, whether service connection is established via substitution	Appellant (widow) seeks to continue Veteran’s appeal as substitute to reopen PTSD claim and obtain service connection	VA/RO contends basic eligibility for substitution must be decided by AOJ; until substitution is established, Board lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate merits	Referred to AOJ to determine basic eligibility for substitution; merits deferred and remanded for development if substitution granted
Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left foot injury via substitution	Appellant seeks substitution to pursue the left foot claim on Veteran’s original claim	VA/RO maintains substitution eligibility unanswered and thus the Board cannot decide the substantive claim	Referred to AOJ for substitution determination; substantive adjudication remanded and deferred pending AOJ action

Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991) (issues are inextricably intertwined when one cannot be finally decided without the other)
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999) (appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on remanded matters)