UNITE D STATES COURT OF A PPEALS FO R VETE RANS C LAI MS

N O . 01- 192 5
P AM EL A J. S HARP , A P P E L L

A NT ,
V . A NTHO NY J. P RI NC I PI , S EC RET AR

Y O F V ETERA NS A FF AI RS , A PPELLEE .

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided January

21, 2004 )

Sa nd ra E. Bo oth , o f C olumbu s, Oh io, wa s o n th e br ie fs fo r t he a pp e lla nt.
Tim S. Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd al l Camp be ll , A s s i s t a

nt G e n e r a l Couns e l; Carolyn F. W ashington , Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Robert W . Legg , all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the br ief for

the appe llee.
Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and F ARL EY and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. K R A M E R , Chie f Judge : T h e ap pe llan t , th rou g h co u n se l, ap pe als a July 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 , B o ard of V et eran s' A ppe als ( B oard o r B V A ) decisi on th at de n ied h er cl aim f

or accr ue d b en ef

it s. R ec o rd (R .) at 2, 8-1 0

. The appellant and the Secre tary have f iled briefs, a

nd the appe llant has filed

a re ply brief. T h i s a p p e a l i s t i me l y , a n d th e Cou r t ha s j ur i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 3 8 U. S

. C. § § 7 2 5 2 (a) a n d 7 2 6 6 (a). Fo r th e rea so n s t h at follow , th e C o u rt w ill aff irm th e Ju ly 2 0 0 1 B o ard d e c i s i o n.

I. Backg r ou nd Th e veter an, the appel l ant ' s husband, ser ved on ac t ive dut

y f r om O ct ober 1968 t o M ar ch 1971. R. a t

72- 73. A V A reg ion al of f i ce ( R O ) , i n a Sept em ber 1995 d eci si on, i nt eral i a,
aw ard ed th e v etera n se rvic e c o n n ec t ion for b ilateral h ip repla ce m en t s du e to a v as cu lar n ec ros is and a s s i g ne d a c o mb i ne d d i s a b i l i t y r a t i ng o f 6 0 % , e f

f e c t iv e No v e mb e r 2 3 , 1 9 8 8 , and 100 % ,2

ef f ective M ar ch 16, 1994. R. a t 551- 54. I n a D ecem ber 1996 l et t er , the R O not i f

i ed the vet er an th at, effective Jan u ary 1 , 1 9 9 7 , h e w as en t itled t o "ad d it ion al b en efit s" for h is sp o u se an d ch ild

an d th at h is "d isa b ilit

y co m pe n sa t ion " w o u ld b e a m en d ed ac co rdin g ly. R . at 65 3 ; see 3 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 1 5 (ad d it ion al co m pe n sa t ion for d ep en d en t s); see al so R. a t 55 9- 63 ( D e c e m be r 1, 19 95 , RO l et t ert o vet er an inf

or m i ng h i m of

his pot ent i al ent i tlem en t t o addi t i onal c om pensati on f or dependen t s a nd that , i f cer t ai n req uested i nf

or m at i on reg ar di ng an y depe nd ent s was not

r eceived w i thin one yearaf t erdat e of

l et t er , R O w oul d n ot

be abl e t o paysuch addi t i onal benef i t s pr i or t o dat e that

i t r eceived r eques t ed i nf

or m at i on), 634 ( D ecem ber 6, 1996, l et t erf r om

v etera n t o R O reg ard in g d ep en d en cy in form ation ). Th e RO , i n a N ovem ber 30, 1998, l et t er , i nf or m ed the vet er an, i nt er al i a, ( 1) of i t s M ay 19 98 de cisi on aw arding h im a rating of t ot al disabili t y based up on ind ivi du al un em ployabil it y, ef f ec t ive N ov ember23, 198 8 ( see R . at 98 3 -87 ), an d (2 ) th at, "[s]t arti n g Jan u ary 1 , 1 9 9 7 , " h is di sa bi l i t ycom pensati on w oul d i ncl ude addi t i onal c om pensati on "beca u se [ d] ependen t s [ had be e n] a d d e d

. " R. a t 991- 92 ( emph a s i s o m i tte d )

. Th e v e t e r a n s ub s e q ue ntl y a p p e a l e d the RO d eterm in ation as t o th e Jan u ary 1 9 9 7 effective d ate f o r th e ad d it ion al co m pe n sa t ion pa id t o h im f orhi s de pe ndent s ; s pe c i f i c al l y , he s oug ht an ef

f ec t ive da t e of

D ec ember1, 198 8. R. at 100 2- 03 ( D ecem ber 1998 N ot i ce of D i sa gr eem ent) , 1036 (M ay1999 S ubst ant ive A ppea l )

. O n D ecem ber 1 8 , 1 9 9 9 , th e v etera n d ied

. See R

. at 1039. The appel l ant , i n J anuar y 2000, subm i tt ed an appl i cati on f

or , i nt er al i a, acc r ued benef i t s. R

. at 1045- 48. I n M ar ch 2000, the RO i nf or m ed
th e a pp ella n t

th at it h ad d en ied h er a cc rue d -be n efit s claim (R

. at 1 0 5 5 ), an d th e a pp ella n t t im ely ap pe ale d t o th e B o ard th at R O d ec isio n (R . at 10 7 5 -76 , 1 1 0 4 -05 ). I n it s J ul y 2001 deci si on, the Boar d f i r st concl uded t

hat the a ppel l ant ' s cl ai m i s der ivative of the vet er an' s c l ai m and that she has no "i nd ependen t st at us orst anding t o br i ng a cl ai m f or i n c r e a s e d d e p e n d e n cy a l l o wa n c e " p r i o r o r s u b s e q u e n t t o th e v e t e r a n ' s d e a th

. R

. a t 9

. T h e BV A
th en co n clu d ed t

h at, b ec au se th e v etera n ' s c laim w as pe n d in g at h is d ea th , th e a p p e lla n t is lim it ed t o rec eiv in g th o se b en efit s t h at ac cru ed "w ith in th e last t w o ye ars o f [ th e v etera n ' s] lif e." R

. at 10. Th e B oar d denied t he appel l ant ' s c l ai m f

or acc r ued benef

i t s because the vet er an h ad

rec eiv ed all b en efit s tha t h ad ac cru ed d u rin g t

h e tw o ye ars p rior t o h is d ea th

. Id

.3 II. Anal ysis P u rs u a n t to 3 8 U .S .C . § 5 1 2 1 , pe r i od i c m one t ar

ybe nef i t s . . . unde r l aws ad m i ni s t er ed by the Secre t ar yt o w hic h an i nd ivi dual w as ent i tl ed at deat h un der
ex isti n g rati n g s o r d ec isio n s, or th o se b as ed o n ev id en ce in th e file at d a t e o f d e a th ( he r e i na f t e r i n thi s s e c t i o n . . . r e f e r r e d t o as " acc r ued ben ef

i t s" ) and due and un pai d f or a per i od not

t o exce ed tw o y e a rs , s h a ll , u p o n t h e d e a th o f s u c h in d iv id u a l b e p a id [to
ce rt ain list ed in d ivid u als]. 3 8 U .S .C . § 5 1 2 1 (a). S pe cifically, sec t ion 5 1 2 1 pro v id es for t w o d isti n ct t

yp es o f perio d ic

m o n etary b en efit s tha t

m ay b e a v aila b le to elig ib le s u rviv o rs. Bonn y v. Pr inc ipi , 16 Vet

. A pp . 504 , 507 (2002). Th e f

i r st t y pe i s " benef

i t s aw ar ded but un pai d" t o a vet er an under exi sti ng ra t i ngs

o r de cisio n s a t

th e tim e o f his o r h er d ea th ; an elig ib le s u rviv o r is e n t itled t o rec eiv e th e e n t ire

am o u n t o f an y su ch b en efit s. Id

. Th e se cond t y pe i s " acc r ued ben ef

i t s" t o w hic h a vet er an w as ent i tl ed base d on evi dence i n hi s or her f i l e at the t i m e of

his or her deat

h; an el i gi bl e sur

vivor is li m it ed t o r ec eivi ng a ny s uc h be nef i t s tha t wer e d ue and unpa i d t o t he v eter an d ur i ng t

he
t w o -year p erio d prio r t o h is o r h er d ea th

. Id . a t 5 0 7 -0 8

. I n th is re g a rd , th e V e te ra n s B e n e fi ts A ct of 2 0 0 3 (V B A o f 2 0 0 3 ) w a s en ac t ed o n D ec em b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 3

. VB A of 2003, Pub. L . No. 108-183, 117 Stat. 2651. As is r eleva nt he re, the VB A of 2003 eliminated the two-year limit ation

on the pa y me nt o f a c c ru e d b e ne fi ts b ut t hat st atut or

y re vis ion is n ot a pp lic a ble in t his c a se be c a

us e Congr ess ex p l i cit ly

made the r epea l of that two-year limit ation applicable with respec t to deaths

occu rr i n g o n o r after the V BAof 2003' s date of e nactment ( Dec ember 16, 2003). VB A of 2003 § 104(a) , (d), 117 Stat. at 2656. O n a p p e a l, th e a p p e ll a n t fi rs t a rg u e s th a t h e r c la im is n o t a c l a i m f o r a c c ru e d b e n e fi ts

u n d e r s e c tio n 5 1 2 1 . R a th e r, s h e c o n t e n d s th a t s e c tio n 1 1 1 5 b e n e fi ts a re in te n d e d to

com pen sat e th e de pen de n t s of ve t eran s an d th at de pen de n t s th eref ore h ave a propert

y i n t erest i n t hos e b e ne f

i t s , wh i c h i s no t e x t i ng u i s h e d b y th e v e t e r a n' s d e a th

. S h e th u s a s s e r t s th a t s he i s ent i tl ed to r eceive t

he f ul l am oun t

of any r etr oactive s ection 1115 b enef i t s bas ed on h er

v e te ra n -h u s b a n d 's p e n d in g c la i m ; s p e c if ic a ll y , s h e a p p e a rs to b e c la im in g e n titl e m e n t to de pe ndencyc om pe nsa t i on f or the p er i od f

r om D ec ember1, 198 8, t o D ec ember31, 199 6. A ppel l ant ' s Bri ef

( B r . ) at 8- 14; R epl y B r . at

1- 6. Th e app el l ant ' s a r gum en t i s unavai l i ng f

or

se v era l reas o n s.4

Fi r st , the appel l ant

has f ai l ed t o dem onst r at e that she h as st anding t o pur sue her a ss er t ed

se ction 1 1 1 5 cla im
. See Swa n v . D er winski , 1 V et . A pp. 20, 22- 23 (1990) ( appellan t m ust have
stan d in g t o pu rsu e a pp ea l); Mokal v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 12, 13 ( 1 9 9 0 ) (Court adopted jurisdictional restrictions of Ar ticle I I Icase -or- controve rsy rubric)

. I n thi s r egar d, i n Redd ing v. West , th is C o u rt, a fte r q u o tin g th e la n g u a g e o f s e c tio n 1 1 1 5 , c o n c lu d e d th a t, " [i ]f th e re q u is ite

c r i t e r i a t o r e c e iv e ' a d d i t i o na l c o mp e ns a t i o n' u nd e r s e c t i o n 1 1 1 5

. . . a r e me t , th e b e ne f i t f l o ws t o o n lyth e ve t eran or his l ega l r epresen t at ive." Redd ing , 1 3 V e t.A p p . 5 1 2 , 5 1 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( a p p e ll a n t,

w ho w as w i f

e of di sa bl ed vet er an, w as see ki ng b enef i t s under sec t i on 1 115 f

or her sel f f or r egul ar

a i d a nd a tt e nd a nc e o f

a no the r p e r s o n)

. Th e Cou r t the n c o nc l ud e d tha t the a p p e l l a nt

" ha [ d ] no

' pe rso n al stak e in th e o u t co m e o f th e co n t rov ersy [, i.e., th e s ec t ion 1 1 1 5 cla im , ]' b ec au se , sh o u ld her cl ai m be succ ess f

ul , the b enef

i t w oul d f l ow t o the vet er an, and n ot t o her , i n accor dance

w it h sect ion 11 15 ." Id

. at 515 (quoti ng Bak er v. Carr , 3 6 9 U .S . 1 8 6 , 2 0 4 (1 9 6 2 )). T h e C o u rt he l d tha t the a p p e l l a nt

i n Redd ing th e re fo re h a d fa il e d to d e m o n s tra te th a t s h e h a d s ta n d in g to pu rsu e an ap pe al from an R O ' s d en ial o f t h e s ec t ion 1 1 1 5 cla im
. See id . at 51 4-15. Sim il arly, the appel l ant

her e has f

ai l ed t o dem onst r at e that , pr i or t o the v et er an' s deat h, she wou l d have h ad stan d in g t o pu rsu e a se ction 1 1 1 5 cla im
. See Redd ing , supra . I n a d d iti o n , s h e h a s fa il e d to de m ons t r ate t

ha t , s ubs eq ue nt t o the v eter an' s de at h, s he c oul d have s t and i ng t o p ur s ue s uc h a cla im
. Se e Lan dic ho v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp . 4 2, 52 -5 4 ( 19 94 ) ( ve te ra n' s c ha pte r 1 1 d isa

bil ity compensation claims "die[] wit h him"; substituti on of par ty not permissible in this C ourt wher e appellant is vete ran who dies while B oard' s denial of ve tera n' s claim for disability

compensa t i on under c hapter

11 of title 38, U.S. Code, is pending he re on a ppeal)

. Fur ther, the a ppellant has failed to de monstrate that she has a prope rty interest in any

section 1115 benef

its for the per iod from Dec ember 1, 1988, to D ece mber 31, 1996. In this re g ard, the ver y status of the cla im for any such bene fits, i.e., pending , appear s t o defe at the appe llant's a rgument beca use she c annot show that she was in r ece ipt of those benef its at any time. Se eOw ing

s v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 17, 23 (1995) ( noting distinction betwee n rec ipients of and applica nts for bene fits), a

ff 'd, 86 F.3d 1178 (F ed. Cir. 1996) (table)

. The appellant also, as discussed in the prec edingpara g raph, has not shown that there is a ny statutory source for he r asse rted prope rty interest in any

retroa ctive section 1115 bene fits. See Owings , su pra .5

M o re o v e r, th e a p p e ll a n t's c o n s tru c tio n o f t h e s t a tu te , i. e ., th a t it i s in te n d e d to

com pen sat e d epe n de n t s ( see A pp el l ant ' s Br

. at 10- 11) , i s unav ai l i ng. I n t hi s r eg ar d, s ec t i on 111 5 i s i ncl uded i n chapt er11 of t i tl e 38 of

th e U .S . C o d e. Th at chapter gover ns cl ai m s f or
c o m p e n s a tio n b yv e te ra n s fo r th e ir s e rv ic e -c o n n e c te d d is a b il iti e s a n d b y s u rv iv o rs fo r a v e te ra n 's

se rvic e-co n n ec t ed d ea th

. See Landicho , 7 Vet.App. at 47. Speci f i cal l y , as is ap pl i cabl e her e, 38 U. S. C. § 111 0 e x p l i c a t e s a v e t e r a n' s ba s i c e nt i tl e m e nt t o d i s a bi l i t

y c o m p e ns a t i o n, a nd 38 U .S

. C

. § 1114 de l i nea t es the r ates of s uc h di s ab i l i t

y c om pe nsa t i on. 38 U. S. C

. §§ 1110 (b as ic e n t itlem en t

t o w arti m e d isa b ilit

y co m pe n sa t ion ), 1 1 1 4 (rates o f w arti m e d is a b il ity

com pen sat ion ). Se ct ion 11 15 th en provides th at "[ a]ny veteran ent i tl ed t o c om pe nsa t i on a t the

r at es p r ovi ded i n secti on 1 114 . .

. shal l be ent i tl ed t o addi tional com pen sat ion f or depe n de n t s" ( 38 U. S. C. § 1 11 5 ( e m p ha s i s a d d e d ) ) , i
. e . , " a p e r s o n who s e r v e d i n the a c t iv e . . . s e r

v i c e a nd who was di s c ha r ge d o r r el ea s ed unde r c ondi t i ons ot hertha n di s honor ab l e" ( 38 C. F. R. § 3. 1( d) ( 2003) ( def

i nit i on of " vet er an") ) and w ho al r eadyi s ent i tl ed t o som e am oun t of com pensati on for h is se rvic e-co n n ec t ed d isa b il ity also is e n t itled t o an "in cre as e" (M ERRI AM -W EBST ER ' S C OLL E GI ATE D I CT I O NARY 13 (10t h ed. 1999) ( def

i niti on of " addi t i on" ( r ef

er r ed t o i n d ef

i niti on

o f "ad d it ion al"))) in th at co m pe n sa t ion am o u n t b ec au se h e h a s d ep en d en t s. See 3 8 U. S

. C. § 10 1(13 ) ( de f

inin g co m pen sat ion as m on th lypaym en t m ade by S ecret aryt o v et eran be cau se
o f se rvic e- conn ected di sa bi l i t yor t o vet er an' s s ur

vivor becaus e of

vet er an' s s er

vi ce- conn ected d ea th prio r to Jan u ary 1 , 1 9 5 7 ). T h u s, t h e a pp ella n t

h as failed t o ac co u n t b o th for th e pla ce m en t o f sec t ion 1 1 1 5 w ith in
th e v etera n s' disa b ilit

y co m pe n sa t ion pro v isi o n s an d th e p lain lan g u ag e o f sec t ion 1 1 1 5

. See Go od Sa ma rit an Ho sp . v . S

ha lal a , 5 08 U. S. 4 02 , 4 09 (1 99 3) (s tart ingpo int in i nte rp re tin gstatut e is i ts l angua g e ); Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Co u n ci l , Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984) (if intent of Cong ress is clea r, that is end of matter; for c ourt, as we ll as ag ency , must give

e ff e c t to u nambi guo us ly

e xpre sse d inte nt o f C on g re ss) ; se eals o 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(1) (scope of

re vie w) ; Tril le

s v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 31 4 , 3 2 1 (2000) ( en banc ). F urther, the appellant ha s failed to rec og nize that when Con gre s s wi s h ed to provide c hapter 11 benef its for someone other

than a veter an, it did so ex plicitly

. See38 U. S.C. §§ 11 21 (b a sic e nt it lem ent to w art ime de ath compensation for death prior to J an
. 1 , 1 9 5 7 ), 1122 (r ates of w artime de ath compensation), 1141 (basic e ntitlement to peace time death compe nsation for de ath prior to Jan. 1, 1957), 1142 (rates of6

pe a c e tim e de ath c omp e ns atio n) ; Me e k s v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 352, 354 (1999) (ea ch par t or section of statute should be c onstrued in conne ction with ever y other p ar t or sec tion so as to produce harmonious whole) , a

ff 'd, 216 F.3d 1363 ( Fe d. Cir. 2000). The Court thus conclude s that, beca use any retroa ctive section 1115 benef its belonge d to the veter an, not to the appellant (thus she has no proper ty interest in any such bene fits), and be cause the veter an' s claim was e x tinguished by his death, any

claim to benef

its t h at the appe llant may have would arise under section 5121. See R edding and Owings , both su

pra ; Landicho , 7 Vet.App. at 52 (vete ran' s chapte r 11 disability compensation claims "die[] wit h him"; sec tion 5121 is only avenue for qualified survivor to c arr y on, to limi ted extent provided in statute, veter an' s claim).

A s to sec t i on 5 121, the appel l ant ar gues t hat , al though that

sec t i on li m i t s a ccr ued benef i t s to w hic h an el i gi bl e sur vivor m aybe ent i tl ed t o t w o y ear s of

such benef

i t s, that sec t i on do es not l i m i t tha t t wo-y ea r pe r i od t o " the t

wo y ea r s . . . i m m ed i ately pr ec ed i ng t he d ea th of

the
vet er an." A ppel l ant ' s Br. at 14. Th e appe l l ant cont ends, ther ef or e, that 38 C

. F. R

. § 3.1000(a ) i s i nval i d " t o the ext ent

that i t l i m i t s [ V A ' s] l i abi l i t

y [ f or acc r ued ben ef

i t s] t o the t

w o[
- ] y earper i od im m e d ia te ly p re c e d in g th e v e te ra n 's d e a th " ( A p p e l l a n t 's B r. a t 1 8 ) a n d th a t s h e is e n titl e d to

acc r ued ben ef

i t s, i
. e. , dependen t s c om pensati on u nd er sec t i on 1 115 , for any t w o- y earper i od prio r to h er h u sb an d ' s d ea th

. A pp ella n t ' s B r. a t 1 4 -19 ; R ep ly B r. at 6 -8; see 38 U. S. C

. § 5121 ; 38 C. F. R. § 3. 100 0( a) ( 200 3) ( ac c r ue d be n ef it s un de r s ec t i on 512 1)

. I n thi s r eg ar d, as the

a p p e ll a n t im p li c itl y c o n c e d e s , a n y c la im th a t s h e m a y h av e is a c la im fo r a c c ru e d b e n e f its b e c a u s e th e v e te ra n 's c la im fo r a n e a rl ie r e ffe c tiv e d a te fo r th e p a y m e n t o f d e p e n d e n ts b e n e fi ts

u n d er se ction 1 1 1 5 w as pe n d in g at h is d ea th

. Th e app el l ant ' s a r gum ent , how ever , i s unavai l i ng. Th i s C our t , r el y i ng upon, i nt eral i a, the l anguage of

sec t i on 5 121, has s t at ed sp eci f i cal l y that " [ t] he ' t w o y ea rs' [f

o r w hic h accr ued b en efit s m ay b e p aid ] are lim it ed t o [t h e t w o ye ars] im m ed iately p rec ed in g th e v etera n ' s d ea th ." Mar lo w v . West , 12 V et . A pp. 548, 551 (1999) ( concl udi ng, as m at t er of l aw , that , becaus e veter an h a d b e e n c o m p e n s a te d fu ll yd u ri n g tw o y e a rs p ri o r to h is d e a th , th e re w e re n o a c c ru e d b e n e fi ts fo r d a u g h te r to c la im ) , af

f 'd , 2 3 2 F .3 d 9 0 5 (F ed

. C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (t ab le); see Bonn y , 16 Vet

. A pp . at 506 ( di sc uss i ng Marlow , supra , and s t ating, i n addre ss i ng m eani ng of t w o- y earper i od f

or acc r ued benef i t s, that such m eani ng "ha[ s been] cl ear l y def i ned" by U

. S. C our t

of A ppea l s f

or Feder al7

C ircu it an d th is C o u rt

); see also Tobler v. Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 8, 14 (1991) (per curiam order) (" a de c isi on of thi s Court , un le ss or until ov e rt ur ne d

. . . , is a de c isi on of the Court on the date it i s issued; a ny r u li n g s , inte r

p r e tati o n s , o r c o n c lu s io n s o f la w c o n ta in e d in s u c h a d e c is io n are aut ho ri tat iv e andbi nd in g as of th e dat e th e deci si onis is su ed")

. H en ce , g ive n th e C o u rt's i nt e r p r e t a t i o n o f

s e c t i o n 5 12 1 a s e x p r e s s e d i n Bonn yand Marlow , bot h supra , i. e ., th a t th e s ta tu te l i m i t s the t

w o-y ea r pe r i od t o t

he t wo y ea r s i m m ed i ately pr ec ed i ng t he v eter an' s de at

h, the appe l l ant ' s c ont ent i ons as to her ent i tl em ent t o acc r ued ben ef

i t s f or any t w o- y earper i od pr i or
t o h er v etera n -hu sb an d ' s d ea th lac km erit. See G ood Samaritan Hosp. and Chevron , both su pra ;
se eals o 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 1( a )( 1) ; Tril les , su pra ; cf

. Chevron , 4 67 U. S. at 84 3 (p owe r of ag e nc y to

a dmi nis te r c on g re ssi on a lly c re ate d pr ogra m ne c e ssa

ri ly re qu ir e s ma

kin gof ru le s to fi ll a

ny g a p le ft , implicitl y or explicitl y , by

Congr ess). The Court thus concludes that, becau s e (a s the B oard conclude d and the parties do not dispute) the veter an was compensated fully under se ction 1115 for the tw o years im med iately pr e c e din ghis de ath, the re are no a c c ru e d b e ne fi ts f or the a pp e lla nt t o
c la im. Acc ording ly , for the r ea s o n s discussed above , the Court will affirm the July 2001 Boa

rd decision.

III. Conclusi on Bas ed up on the f

or eg oi ng analy s i s , the r ec or d on ap pe al , and the p ar t i es ' pl ea di ngs , the J u l y1 1 , 2 0 0 1 , B o a r d d e c i s i o n i s AF F I R ME D.