UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR VE TER AN S CL AI M S

No. 02-1453

L AR R Y E. B EL TON , S R ., P ETI TI ONER ,

V

.
ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC R ETAR Y O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , R ES PO NDE NT

.

Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and I VERS and GREENE, J ud ge s.

O R D E R
On September

6, 2002, the pro se petitioner filed a plea ding that the Court, in an October 2, 2002, single -judg e orde r, construe d as a pe tition for ext raor dinary relief pursuant to Rule 21 of the Court ' s Rul e s of Pr a c tic e a nd Pr oc e dure

. Th e pe tit ion a sse rt s that the Se c re tary and hi s agents enter ed into a cr iminal conspiracy to preve nt the pay

ment of monies owed to the pe titioner' s mother, Carrie Able, who ha d been g rante d an appor tionment of the petitioner' s dis a b il ity compensation. The petitioner see ks an orde r of this Court requiringthe Secr etar y to pay the petitioner' s mother the

a mou nts ow e d to he r, to pr e ve nt V A f ro m us ingre po rt s th e pe tit ion e r c la ims have be e n il le g a lly obtained, and to r equire VA to ob t ain photocopies of c hecks issued by the Depa

rtment of the Trea sury that wer e alleg edly

inappropriately d i v er t ed to parties other than the pe titioner' s mother. A key element of

the petitioner' s motion relates to whether an apportionment benef it gr anted in fa

vor of his mother has be en proper ly reduc ed. Attac hed to his petition are numer ous exhi bits. I n an October 2 , 2 0 0 2 , s in g le

- ju d g e o r d e r , th e Co u rt o r d e r e d th e Se c r e ta r y to f il e a r e s p o n s e to the petitioner' s construed pe tition.

The Sec reta

ry ' s October

30, 2002, response to the petition indicates that Ms. Able filed for the apportionment benef

it on her own behalf and documents that she rec eived notice of the proposed reduc tion and notice of the rating decision reduc ing he r appor tionment benefit. Response ( Resp.) at 2-3. The S ecr etar

y asser ts that neither Ms. Able, nor her son, Fr ank Able, who is responsible for manag ing her funds, reque sted a he aringin response to the pr oposed re duction or filed a Notice of Disag ree ment in response to the r ating decision re ducing her apportionment benef it. Resp. at 7-8.

I n a Nove mber 20, 2 002, single -judg e orde r, the Court orde red the petitioner to file a

su pp le me nta l me mor a nd

um o f l a w a dd

re ssi ngwh e the r h e ha s sta nd ingto a sse rt

his mot he r' s r ig hts i n t h i s m at t er , an d

o rd er i n g t h e S e c r e t a r y t o fi l e a s u p p l em en t al an s we r t o t h e p et i t i o n er 's supplemental memora

ndum. The petitioner f

iled his suppleme ntal memorandum on Dec ember 10, 2002. There in , he asse rts that his mother is mentally incompetent, totally

disabled, and unde r the

car e of a medical doc tor and a psy chiatrist, and that he has there fore taken it upon himself to act on her be half. De cembe r 10, 2002, Supplemental (Suppl.) Memora ndum at 1-20. The pe titioner2

provides no evidenc e that he is leg ally empower ed to ac t on his mot her' s behalf; indee d, in a later pleading , the petitioner states that Fra nk Able, and not petitioner, is Ms. Able' s g uardia n. See Petitioner' s Marc h 28, 2003, Pleading at Exhi bit G (statement in s upport of cla im, signed by pe tit ion e r, de sc ri bin g F ra nk Ab le as "m y

br oth e r a nd g ua rd ian f or our m oth e r" ); see also Sup pl. An sw e r ( An s. ) at E xhibi t 8 ( le tte r f ro m E xec uti ve Di re c tor

of nurs ingho me in w hic h M s. Ab le is a patient, de scribing Fr ank Able a s Ms. Able' s "guardia n ad litem/responsible par ty ")

.
T h e S ec re t ary fi l ed h i s s u p p l em en t al an s we r on Fe b ru ary 1 0 , 2 0 0 3

. T h e S e cr et ary 's supplement al answe r first re counts the bac kg round of this ca se; it confirms that Ms. Able applied for a nd was g rante d an appor tionment of the incar cer ated ve tera n' s disability co m p en sation, but noted that a f

ield examination had disclosed that she wa s residing in a Medica id-subsidiz ed nursing home and that a ll her expenses we re be ing pa id by Medica id. Suppl. Ans. at 2-4. The Secre tary then notes that, on May

2, 2001, Ms. Able was notified by l etter that, beca use she wa s residing in a Medica id-subsidiz ed nursing home and beca use all her ex penses we re be ing pa id by Medica id, the RO had propose d to terminate he r appor tionment benefits. Suppl. Ans. at 4. Neither Ms. Able nor Fr ank Able r equeste d a hea rin g or pre sented e vidence or ar g ument in response to the pr oposed reduc tion. Suppl . Ans. at 4. On July 9, 2001, the RO notified Ms. Able that her apportionment benef its we re terminated, eff

ective J uly 1, 2001; the RO further informed Ms. A ble of her proce dural

a nd a pp e llate ri g hts . Su

pp l. A ns . at 5. Ho we ve r, VAre c e ive d n o c or re sp on de nc e fr om M s. Ab le

or F ra nk Ab le a tte mpt ingto a

pp e a l or oth e rw ise dis a g re e ing wi th t his de te rm inatio n. Sup pl. An s. at 5. The Secre tary

argues that the pe titioner lacks standing to assert his mother' s rig hts in thi s matter beca use he ha s not been adver sely aff ecte d by the termination of his mother' s apportionment awa rd; is n ot h e r l e g a l g ua

rd ian; a nd ha s n o p e rs on a l st a ke in t he ou tc ome of

the se iss ue s, be c a

us e his compensation benefits ar e not af fec ted by the termination of his mother ' s awa rd. Suppl. Ans. at 6-7. The Sec reta

ry further argues that, under

38 C.F.R. §§ 3.450 and 3.665 (2002) , the bene fits of an inc a rc e rate d v e te ra

n a nd the be ne fi ts a

pp or tio ne d to his be ne fi c iari e s a re s e pa ra te a nd dis tin c t. Sup pl. An s. a t 7- 10 ; see also 38 C.F .R. § 3 .6 65 (e )( 1) (" [a]ll or pa rt of the c omp e ns a tio n n ot p a id t o an inca rce rate d veter an may

be appor tioned to the veter an' s spouse, child, or childre n and depe ndent pare nts on the basis of individual need" ).

Th is C ourt

ha s juri sd ic tio n to iss ue a wr it onl y in ai d o f i ts potential jurisdiction. In re Fe e Agreem ent of Cox , 10 Vet.App. 361, 370 (1997), vacate d in part on other grounds sub nom. Cox v. W est , 149 F.3d 1360 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998) (af firming all holdings; vac ating only for co n s i d er ation of

a sse rt e d f a c ts o c c ur ri ng a ft e r iss ua

nc e of thi s Co ur t' s o pin ion ). Th e re fo re , th e iss ue in t his c a se is whether we c an eve r have jurisdiction over the pe titioner' s claim. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.665(a) , the petitioner, who is inc arc erated, is e ntitled to re ceive only a portion (e qual to the amount pay able f or
a 10 % e va luatio n) of

his dis a bil ity c omp e ns a tio n b e ne fi ts. Se c tio n 3 .6 65 (a ) a lso state s: A p e rs on wh os e be ne fi ts a

re su bje c t to thi s r e du c tio n s ha ll b e inf or me d of the ri g hts of the pe rson' s depende nts to a n apportionment while the per son is incarc erated, and th e con dit ion s und e r w hic h p a y me nts to t

he pe rs on may be re su me d u

po n r e le a se from inca rce ration. I n addition, the perso n ' s dep en dents shall also be notif ied of3

their right to an appor tionment if [VA] is aware of

the ir e xiste nc e a nd

c a n o bta in the ir a dd re sse s. 38 C.F.R. § 3.665(a) (empha sis added). A lthough a rising f rom a ve tera

n' s benef its, an

a pp or tio nme nt i s an e nti ty le g a lly se pa rate fr om tho se be ne fi ts. Thus , w he n v e te ra ns ' de pe nd e nts fi le on their own be half for an apportionm ent, they seek to e x erc ise " their rig ht to an apportionment." Id. ; see also 38 U. S.C. § 5 30 7; se e ge ne ra lly Re dd ing v . W est , 13 Ve t.A

pp . 5 12 , 5 14 -1 5 ( 20 00 ); Ha ll

v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 294, 294- 95 (1993). He re, Ms. Able filed on her ow n behalf an application for the a pportionment (of the petitioner' s benef its) that she eventua lly

rec eived. See Suppl. Ans. at Ex hibit 1.

Th e pe tit ion e r ha s n o le g a lly sig nif ic a nt c on ne c tio n to the a

pp or tio ne d b e ne fi ts; he is n ot M s. Ab l e's l ega l gu ar d i an , an d s h e fi l ed o n h er o wn b eh al f a n ap p l i ca t i o n ex er ci s i n g her own right to an apportionment. B eca

use he is inca

rce rate d, the petitioner is entitled to rec eive no m o re tha n the reduc ed portion of be nefits that he alre ady rec eives. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.665(a) . There fore , he does not have a

persona l stake in the outcome, nor has he shown that he ha s been a dverse ly aff ecte d by the termination of his mother ' s apportionment awa rd. As such, the pe titioner' s argument that he has standing to bring this petition because the appor tionment arose out of his bene fits lacks merit. See Redding , 1 3 V e t.A

pp . at 51 4 ( " in o rder for an a pp e lla nt t o h a ve sta

nd ing , th a t in div idu a l mu st demonstrate that he or she ha s been injure d .

. . and has a ' persona l stake in the outcome of the

co n t ro v er s y '" ( qu o t i n g Ba k e r v . Ca rr , 369 U.S. 186 (1962)). Fur thermore , the argument that he has sta nd ingto b ri ngthi s c la im b a se d o n the fa c t tha t his moth e r is inc omp e te nt al so la c ks me ri t, b e c a us e Fr ank Able, a

nd not the petitioner, is her guardia n or fiducia

ry for suc h matters. In finding a lac k of standing in Redding , the C ourt looked t o see whether an appellant who was not the leg al g uardia n of the ve tera

n had standing to submit an NOD or Substantive Appea l (in seeking incre ased compensation for the vete ran unde r 38 C.F.R. § 3.351(a )(2) (1998))

. Redding , 13 Vet.App. at 514- 15. I n this case, the pe titioner would not have suc h s t an d ing. Without standing, ther e ca n be no potential jurisdiction over his claim. Ther efor e, the Court will dismi s s t h e p et ition for lack of jurisdiction. See id. at 514 (" [a] n appellant who files an appea l w ith this Court is require d to have sta nd ing " ); Cox , su

pr a

. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is
ORDERED that the petitioner' s petition is DI SMI SSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DA TE D: July

31 , 2 00 3 PER CU RI AM

.

KRAMER, Chief Judge , co n cu rr i n g: Ic o n cu r i n t h e C o u rt 's d i s m i s s al o f t h e p et i t i o n er 's Se pte mbe r 6 , 20 02 , c on str ue d pe tit ion fo r e xtra or din a ry re lie f i n th e natur e of

a wr it o f m a nd a mus

. Iwrite sepa

rate ly to note that, in addition to the matters ref err ed to by the majority , Ibelieve that the petition should be dismi ssed for lack of jurisdiction on the g round that the Court' s authority to issue

a wr it purs u an t to the All W rits Act (AWA), 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) , does not extend to thi s matter.4

I n th is r e g a rd , I no te that th e AWAe mpo we rs the Court to i ssu e " wr its ne c e ssa

ry or a pp ro pr ia te in

a id o f [i ts] .

. . jur isd ic tio n[]." 28 U. S.C. § 16 51 (a ). Th e Court ha s int e rp re te d thi s to me a n th a t, " if the Court's g ranting of the . . . petition would lead to a [Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (BV A)] decision

ov e r w hic h th e Court wo uld have jur isd ic tio n, the Court wo uld po sse ss jur isd ic tio n to issu e a wr it of m and amu s .

. . ." In re Fe e Agree ment of Cox , 10 Vet.A p p

. 3 6 1 , 371 (1997), vacate d on other gr ou nd s su b n om . Co

xv . W est, 14 9 F .3 d 1 36 0 ( F e d. Cir . 1 99 8) (a ff ir min g a ll h old ing s; v a c a tin g on ly fo r co ns ide ratio n of as se rt e d fa c ts oc c ur ri ng a ft e r iss ua

nc e of thi s Co ur t' s o pin ion ); see YI v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 265, 267 ( 2001) (pe r curiam or der) (holding that Court lacks jurisdiction over a ny issue that cannot a ctually

or potentially

be subj ect of BV A decision). Her e, ther e is no indication that the petitioner has a

pending claim re lated to this petition t hat would eve r be the s u b j ec t o f a B VA decision; thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition in this case. See YI, supra (conc luding that, beca use re lief soug ht by

petitioner wa s unrelate d to any pending claim or BVA de cision, Court lacke d jurisdiction over petition); Lan e v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 412, 413- 14 (1998) ( per c uriam orde r); Cox , su pr a . Acc ording ly , the petit ion should be dis missed based on the Court' s lack of jur isdiction over this matter.