M rs
. V an V al kenb urg' s cl ai m was i ni t i al l y de ni ed by a r egi o nal off i ce o n t he b asi s t hat al t ho ugh her hus b and 1 di e d i n a VA h os pi t a l , h i s de a t h w a s n ot s e r v i c e c on n e c t e d a n d t h u s , s h e di d n ot qu a l i f y f or D I C be n e f

i t s u n de r 38 U. S. C. § 1 1 5 1 (1 9 9 5 ). R . at 1 7 9 ; s ee al s o B r ow n v. G ardner , 51 3 U

. S. 11 5 (19 9 4 ) ( i nval id a ting V A ' s p re- 1 9 9 7 regul at i o ns i nt erpret i ng s ect i o n 11 5 1 t o requi re cl ai m ant s t o de m o nst rat e V A negl i gence). H o wever, t hi s i ni t i al de ni al was no t t he bas i s f or t he B oard deci s i on on r evi ew, and t he Secr et ar y ha s not ar gu ed t hat i t coul d be a bas i s f or den i al of

an ea r l i er ef f ect i ve dat e. UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
N O
. 07-2670
N OR MA V AN V AL K EN B UR G , A PP EL L ANT ,
V
. E RI C K. S H I N SEKI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

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

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls (Argued F ebrua

ry 24, 2009 Dec ided J uly 24, 2009)
Se an A. Ra v in , with Kathy A. Lieberman , b oth of Was hin g ton , D .C. , f

or the a pp e lla nt. Kerry J. Loring , with whom John H. Thompson , A c tin g Ge ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Brian B. Rippel , D e puty As sis tant G e ne ra l Co un se l, all of Washington D.C., we re on the pleading s for the a ppellee.

Be fore KASOL D, L ANCE, and SCHOEL EN, Judges

. KASOL D, Judge : Mrs. Norma V an Va l k enburg, w idow of World War I Iveter an Jack Van Va lkenburg , appea ls through c ounsel a Septembe r 6, 2007, decision of the Boa rd of Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd) that de nied entitlement to an ef fec tive date e arli er t h an March 7, 1995, for the a

war d of depe ndency

and indemnity

compensation (DI C).

I. OV ER

VI EW Mr. J ack Va n Va l k enburg se rved honor ably on active duty

in the U.S. Army

from Se pte mbe r 1 94 2 unti l Jan ua ry 19 46 . H e die d o n D e c e mbe r 3 , 1 98 4, wh ile i n a VAho sp ita l. Re c or d ( R.) a t 18 , 8 08 . In July 19 97 , Mrs . Van V a lke nb ur g wa s a wa rd e d D I C, 1 with an ef

fec tive date of Marc h 7 , 1 99 5, the date sh e indis puta bly fi le d a c la im f or DI C w iththe Se c re tary . M rs
.2

Van Val k en b urgcontested the eff ective date and c laimed entitlement to DI C benefits fr om the date of her husba

nd' s death. R. at 1240. Ge ne ra lly , th e e ff

e c tiv e date of

an a wa rd ba se d o n a

n ori ginal cla im f

or DI C be ne fi ts i s the date on

wh ic h th e a

pp lic a tio n is re c e ive d b y th e S e c re tary . 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 10 (a ). Ho we ve r, if the claim for

entitlement to DI C benefits is filed wi t h t h e S ecr etar y within one y ear

of the veter an' s death a

nd the claim is ult i m at el y gra n ted, then the e ffe ctive date will be the first day of the month on which the vet er an d ied. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(d)(1) . Additionally , if a c laim is filed with the Social Security

Adminis t ra t i o n (S SA) on a for m jointl y presc ribed by

the Secr etar

y and the c omm iss ion e r o f S SA, su c h a pp lic a tio n " sh a ll b e de e me d to be an a pp lic a tio n f

or be ne fi ts" to both ag encie s on the date the application is filed. 38 U.S.C. § 5105(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.201 (2009). Mor eo v er , at ora l argument, the Secr etar y advised the Court that a ny application for

m f i l e d w i t h S S A r e q

u e s t i n g s u r

v i v o r ' s b e n e f

i t s w o u l d s u f f i c e t o w ar

r an tane f f e c t i v e d a t e f

o r D IC based on the date of

the SSA application. T h e u l t i m a t e i s s u e b e f o r e t h e C o u rt i s w h e t h e r t h e B o ar d c l e ar l y e r r e d in i ts deter mination that the preponde ranc e of the evidenc e supported its conc lusion that Mrs. Van Valkenbur g did not fi le an a pplication for e ither DI C or survivor' s benef its, with t he Secr etar

y or the commissioner, re spectively , prior to Marc h 7, 1995, and more specific ally , wi t h i n one y ear of the date of

her husba

nd' s death. F or the re asons stated be low, the dec ision of the Boa rd will be

reve rsed a

nd the matters r emande d for f urther a djudication consistent with this opi nion.

II. DI SCU SSIO N A. Application for

DI C Filed with the Secr etar y 1. Fa c ts There is no dispute that Mrs. Van Va lkenburgsoug ht cer tain VA bene fits and co m p l eted

numerou s VA fo rm s associate d with the death of her husba

nd and her

rec eipt of bene fits. For

ex am p l e, s h e fi led (1) a

n "A pplication for United States F lagfor B urial Purposes" (R. at 163), (2) a n "A ppli ca t i o n fo r B urial B enef its" (R. at 170), ( 3) re lease s of her husband' s funds and p er s o n al eff

ects (R. at 1514, 1517), and (4) a VA f orm addre ssing f

unera l arra

ng ements (R. at 15 19 ). On

De c e mbe r 1 2, 19 84 , s he a lso fi le d a re qu e st f or re le a se of

a ll V A m edi cal re c or ds , indic a ti n g th a t th e in f

o r mati o n w a s b e in g r e qu e s te d f o r a s s is ta n c e w it h w h a t a p p e ar s to be socia lT he q uest i o n on t he f o rm rel at ed to t hi s m arked b o x is no t li m i t ed to a cl ai m for D IC a nd a p p ears t o i nq ui re 2 wh et h er a c l ai m f

or a n y V A ben ef

i t s pr ev i ou s l y h ad bee n s u bmi t t ed.

3 services or social be nefits. R. at 1510. Ther e is conflictingevidenc e, howe ver, r eg arding whether she submitted an application for DI C prior to Marc h 1995. The re cord r efle cts that on Dec ember 18, 1984, the Secr etary fo rw ar ded Mrs. Va n Valkenbur g an application for DI C benefits (VAFo rm 21-534). R. at 166. The letter forwa rding the DI C application states that Mrs. Va n Va l k en b u rg should complete it within one y ear of her h u s b an d ' s d e a th

. I t a ls o s tate s th a t M r s
. V an V a lk e nb u r g c o u ld h e lp s p e e d the proce ssing of

her c laim by

fur n i s h i ng a ce rtified copy of the public or c hurch r ecor d of her marria g e. The rec ord re flec ts that an applica tion for DI C was re ceive d by the Secr etar

y on Marc h 7 , 1 9 9 5 , with no ear lier application reflec ted there in. On the other ha nd, the re cord contains a c opy

of the Va

n Valkenbur g ' s "Cer

tificate of

Marr iag e Reg istration"–whic h was

cer tified on Novembe r 30, 1984, and is in the re cord w ith other documents re ceive d by the Se c re tary in l a te 19 84 and

e arl y 19 85 . H ow e ve r, the c op y do es no t refl e c t sp e c if ic a lly wh e n it

wa s re cei ved by th e Se c re tary . R. a t 16 1. Al so , a No ve mbe r 2 4, 20 00 , le tte r f ro m th e Na sh vil le reg ional office (RO) to an of fice of the De partment of D efen s e (D OD) certifie s that VA re cords ind ic a te that Mr s. Va

n V a lke nb ur g wa s r e c e ivi ngDI C and "has be e n r e c e ivi ngthe be ne fi t continuously

since [the veter an' s] death, Dece mber 3, 1984." R. at 1386. A d d i t i o n a l l y , a

b o x m ar k e d o nM r s
. V a nV a l k e nb u r g ' s M ar c h1 9 9 5 a p p l i c a t i o nf

o r D IC ind ic a te s th a t sh e ha d n ot p re vio us ly su bmi tte d a n a pp licatio n f

or VAbe ne fi ts, a lth ou g h M rs
.

2 Van Va lkenburghas also re peate dly asser ted duringthe proc essing of her claim for DI C and for

an ea rlier e ffe ctive date that she filed a n ear lier application with both t he RO and the VA hos p it a l w h e r e h e r h u s b an d d ie d

. T h e M ar c h 1 9 9 5 a p p li c a ti o n a ls o r e f

le c ts th a t Mr s. Van Valkenbur g lists 1975 (after f irst writing " 1985" a

nd then writing t h e y ear

"1975" over it), a s the y ear in which her

Social Security

benef its beg an. I n the dec ision on appeal, the B oard f ound that the pre pondera nce of the evidence supported a f

inding that Mrs. V an Va lkenburgdid not file a cla im for DI C directly with the Se c re tary pr ior to M arc h 1 99 5. Mr s. Va n V a lke nb ur g argue s th a t th e B oa rd ' s f ind ingis c le arl y
e rr on e ou s and , a lternat iv ely , th a t th e B oa rd ' s st a te me nt o f r e a so ns or ba se s w ithre g ard

to t his fi nd ingis i na de qu a te . T he Se c re tary dis pute s b oth

argume nts

.4 2. An aly sis Th e re c or d s up po rt s Mr s. Van Valke nb ur g ' s argume nt t hat th e B oa

rd ' s st a te me nt i s inadequate with reg ard to its finding t h at s h e d i d n o t file a c laim for DI C with the Secreta ry prior to March 1995, a

nd in particular

within one y ear

of her husband' s d ea t h

. S p ec ifically , the B oard fa i l edt o d i s cu s s t h e N o v em b er 1 9 8 4 ce rt i fi edco p y

o f M r s
. Va nVa l k en b u rg's m arri age
certific a te , le av in g u n an s w e r e d w h a t im p o rt, o r la c k th e r e o f

, th is h a s in th e c o n te xt of a Dec em b er 1 9 8 4 l etter notify ing he r that she c ould help expedite the proce ssing of a cla im for DI C benefits if she supplied suc h a ce rtification. Additionally , the B oard f ailed to discuss the poss i b l e import of the Novembe r 2000 Na s h v i lle RO letter to an of fice of the DO D, which certified th a t V A r e c o r d s in d ic a te d M r s
. Van Valkenbur g was in re ce i p t o f DI C compensation continually since he r husband' s death. R. at 1386. This failure le aves much unanswe red, inc luding what releva nce the letter mig ht have on whether Mrs. Van V alkenbur g submitt ed an a pplication for DI C within one y ear of the de ath of he r h us ba nd , a nd , inte r a lia , w he the r t

he a ppli cat ion

may have be e n lo st b y

the Se c re tary

or he ld at the RO that provided this ce rtification s u ch t h at i t was under the impression that Mrs. Van Valkenbur g wa s i n re ce i p t of DI C from the date of her husband' s death be cause the form wa s located in the r ecor ds file at the RO. Moreove r, the B oard g ave le ss weig ht to Mrs. Van Valkenburg ' s statements that she filed for DI C shortly

afte r her hus b an d 's d ea t h larg ely

beca use (1) she initially

marke d a box on her Marc h 1995 DI C application indicating that she pre viously had n o t appli ed for

VA bene fits, and (2 ) t he re was no DI C a

pp lic a tio n in

the re c or d p re -d a tin g the Marc h 1 99 5 a pp lic a tio n. With reg ar d to th e f

o r me r , th e B o ar d f

a il e d to d is c u s s th e c o n f li c t b e tw e e n th e ma

r k ing of the box indicating Mrs. Van V alkenbur g previously had not applied f

or VA be nefits and the f

act that she clea rly had applied f

or a U .S. flag and other

VA buria l benef

its, and whether the markingof the bo x simply

was a misunderstanding on her pa rt. As to the latter, the Boa rd fa iled to expl ain why it g ave g reater weig ht to the fac t that a n application for DI C dated prior to the Marc h 1 9 95 applic a ti o nw a s n o t i nth e f il e th anit g a v e to M r s
. V anV a lk e nb u r g ' s te s ti mo n y th a t s h e h a d

f iled for DI C earlier , even thoug h there we re k n own, sig nificant e rror s associate d with her VAfile, as evidenc ed by

the appa rent No v em b er 2000 VA mi s -c e rt if ic a tio n th a t D I C ha d b e e n p a id t o M rs
. Van Va lkenburgsince the de ath of h er h u s b an d. Se e Mi nd e nh all v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 2715

(1994) (a p p ly ing the presumption of re g ularity to RO processe s); Ashley v . Derwinski ( Ashley II) , 2 Vet.App. 307, 309 ( 1 9 9 2 ) (p re sumption of regularity in the administrative proc ess may not

a tta c h if the fa c ts b e fo re the Court indi cat e an ir

re g ula r p ro c e ss) ; see also United States v . Roses Inc. , 706 F .2 d 1 56 3, 15 67 (F e d. Cir . 1 98 3) (p re sumpt ion of re g ula ri ty " do e s n ot h e lp t o s us ta in

an ac tion that on its fac e appe ars irr egular" ). I n sum, th e B o ar d ' s f

a il u r e to f

u ll y d is c u s s th e e v id e n c e in th e f il e th a t is r e le v an t a nd mater i al t o the issue of whe ther Mrs. Va lkenburghad filed a claim for D I C earlier

than Marc h 1995, and in particular shortly afte r her husband' s death, fr

ustrates judicial a

ppellate r eview. Al lda yv . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A

pp . 5 17 , 5 27 (1 99 5) ; see also W ashington v. N

icholson , 19 Vet.App. 362, 367-68 (2005) (B oard must " assess the c redibility of, an d weight to be g iven to," la y te sti mony ); Gutierrez v. Princ ipi , 1 9 V e t.A pp . 1 , 9 (2 00 4) (B oa

rd ' s r e a so ning fl awe d w he n it fai ls t o d isc us s a de qu a te ly e vid e nc e in s up po rt

of c la im) ; Thompson v. Gober , 1 4 V e t. Ap p
. 187, 188 (2000) ( Boa

rd must provide an a dequate statement of r easons or bases "fo r its rejec tion of any materia l evidence favorable to the c laimant") . Gene rally , such er ror wa rra nts remand. See Tuc k e r v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 369, 374 ( 1998) (r emand is a ppropriate "where the B oard ha s inc or re c tly a pp lie d th e law, fa ile d to pr ov id e an adeq uate state me nt o f r e a so ns or ba se s f or its deter minatio n s , o r wher e the r ecor d is otherwise inade quate" ). In this inst ance , howeve r, our conclusion below–that reve rsal is war rante d with rega rd t o the B oard' s finding that the preponde ranc e of the evidenc e suppo rt ed a fi n ding that an application for survivor' s benef its had

no t be e n f

ile d w ithSSA

–mo ots the ne e d to re mand wi th r e g ard

to t he is su e of w he the r a c la im for DI C had bee n filed direc tly with the Secre tary

. B. A pplication For

m Requesting Survivor' s Be nefits, Filed w ith the SS A Commiss ioner

1. Fa c ts The re cord r efle cts numerous re quests by the Secr etar

y t o deter mine whether

Mrs. Van Valkenbur g filed an a

pplication for survivor ' s benef its wi t h t h e S S A commissioner, e.g ., letters dated Nove mber 19, 1998; May 11, 1999; May

27, 1999; May

25, 2001; a fax dated August 16, 19 99 ; and no le s s t h anf o u r r e p o rt s o f

c o n t a c tb e t w e e nV A an d S S A

. T h e S S A i n i t i a l ly responde d to the Secre tary on May 18, 1999, that a " survivor" ap p l i cation wa s filed in Dec ember 1974 and that Mrs. Va

n Valkenbur g beca

me entitled to s u ch b en ef i ts in S eptember

1988. R. at 1299. I n J uly

1999, SSA aga in verified ent i t l ement to bene fits as of September 1988. R. at6

1304. Howeve r, an Aug ust 17, 1999 , l ett er f rom SSA to Mrs. Van Valkenbur g states that she be c a me e nti tl ed to "spo use' s b e ne fi ts" in A pr il 1 98 0 a

nd be c a me e nti tle d to " wi do w' s b e ne fi ts" in Dec ember

1984. R. at 13 1 7

. An August 18, 1999, repor t of contac t refle cts that a VA

re pr e se ntativ e re po rt e d th a t a s up ervi so r at SSAstate d th a t pr ior to t he ve te ra n' s d e a th, (1 ) M rs
. V an V a lk e nb u r g w a s r e c e iv in g s p o u s e ' s b e n e f it s , ( 2 ) th e r e w a s n o a

p p li c a ti o n o r p a

p erw ork to be

c omp le te d w he n th e ve te ra n d ie d b e c a

us e th e be ne fi ts a

re " c ha ng e d o ve r" to w ido w' s b e ne fi ts, (3) S S A h as "e liminated almost all actual pape rwork a nd information is input by computers f

or the mos t pa

rt ," and (4) e ve n if

the re wa s a

fi le , if the re is " no a c tua l ne w p a pe rw or k it is destroy ed af

ter 5 y ear s." R. at 1321. L ess than a w ee klater, on Aug ust 24, 1999, SS A re ported that Mrs. Va n Valkenbur g "f iled" a nd was e ntitled to widow's be nefits i n September 1988. R. at 1329. A r eport of c ontact completed that same day

ref lects that a V A re prese ntative re ported that a n SSA employ ee stated that i f a widow is alrea dy draw ing Socia l Security benef its, "all they

have to do is ca ll Social Security ," a

nd that SSA doe s n o t require proof of death " since they

simply pay the g reater be ne fi t and

no t bo th. " R. at 13 33 . A lso on Au g us t 24 , 1 99 9, a

se rv ic e re pr e se ntative at SSA

cer tified that Mrs. Van V alke n b u rg b ec ame e ntitled to spouse's be nefits in April 1980 and that she a u t o m ati cally

beg an re ceivingwidow' s benef its when her husba

nd died in Dec ember

1984. R. at 1337. A May 3 0 , 2 0 0 1 , r e p o rto f

c o n t a c tr e f

l e c t s t h a ta

V A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e r e p o rt e d t h a tanS SA employ ee stated that M rs
. Van Valkenburgwas re ceivingSSA benefits continually from bef ore the ve te ra n' s d e a th, and

that a ft e r h is de ath tho se be ne fi ts w e re tr ans fe rr e d to wi do w' s b e ne fi ts. R. at 1 4 1 0

. T h e S SA employ ee a lso reporte dly stated that Mrs. Va

n Valkenbur g "a

pplied" f or SSA dis ability

twice, with proba

ble application dates of January 19 92 and Jul y

1993, based on when those c laims were decide d. Id . Yet, a S ep t ember 2001 letter fr om SS A to Mrs. Van Valkenbur g states that she ha d been r ece iving SSA benef its since April 1984 (R. at 1423), a nd a Mar ch 2 0 0 2 letter fr om SS A to the Secr etar y states that, prior to her

husband' s death, Mrs. Va n Va lke nb ur g wa s r e c e ivi ngbe ne fi ts a s a mot he r w ithc hil d in

c are , a nd thi s w a s a

uto matic a lly

c on ve rt e d in

De c e mbe r 1 98 4 to surv ivor's ben efi ts, and a g a in c on ve rt e d in

Se pte mbe r 1 99 8 to widow' s benef

its, all without any

applications beingfiled.7

Throug hout the proce ssing of her c laim for an earlier ef fec tive date, Mrs. V an Valkenbur g h as indicated that she (1) thinks she filed a claim for SSA widow' s benef its after he r husband' s death (R. at 1287), (2) f iled for SSA benef

its before her husba

nd' s death (R. at 1361), and (3) beg an rec eiving additional funds from SSA automatically following his death (R. at 1632, 1640). I n the decision on appeal, the B oard f ound that the weig ht of the evide nce suppor ted a finding that Mrs. Van V alkenbur g did not file any appli cation for SSA survivor's be nefits af ter the death of her husba

nd. Specif

i cally , the B oard a ssigne d more we ight to the SSA repor ts that indicated Mrs. Van Valkenbur g ' s survivor' s benef its be g an automatically , without an ap p l i cation, than it did to the SS A re ports indicating that she had f iled for these benef

its. I n its statement of

rea sons or bases, the Boa rd er roneously stated that a Ma

y 2001 repor

t of co n t act reflec ted that "the veter an" applied for S S A b en efits i n 1992 and 1993 (longafte r the de ath of Mr. V an Valken b u r g ) , w h e n in f

a c t th a t r e p o rt o f c o n ta c t s tate s th a t it w a s M r s
. V an V a lk e nb u r g who

a pp lie d; a nd the B oa rd a lso fa ile d to no te that Mr s. Van Valke nb ur g wa s r e c e ivi ngSSA survivor' s or widow' s benef its, or both, long bef

ore 1992. R. at 9. More over, a lt h o u g h the B oard

n o t edt h e A u gu s t1 9 9 9 S S A d o cu m en tt h at i n d i ca t edM rs
. Va nV a l k en b u rg h adfi l edfo r w i d o w's b en ef i t s , i tfa i l edt o n o t e t h e M ay 1 9 9 9 S S A l et t er

t h at i n d i ca t e d s h e h a d f i l edfo r s u rv i v o r's be ne fi ts. R. at1 1 , 1 3 , 1 2 9 9

. M r s
. V anV a l k e nb u r g ar g u e s t h a tt h e B o ar d ' s f i n d i n g i s c l e a rl y
e rr on e ou s and , a lte rn a tiv e ly , th a t th e B oa rd ' s st a te me nt o f r e a so ns or ba se s w it h regard to th is fi nd ingis i na de qu a te . T he Se c re tary dis pute s b oth

argume nts

. 2. An aly sis a. Joi ntly Prescr ibed For

m I n 1956, Congr ess en ac t ed t he Servic emen' s and Ve tera ns' Survivor Be nefits Act (SVSBA) , with the intent to, inter alia, eliminate the " administrative maze" t h at ap p licants for Fe dera l surviving- spouse bene fits had to work throug h to r ec eive full benefits, and fa cilitate a streamlined pr ocess by

which wi d o ws and widowe rs could file a n application for

benef its at either SSA or VA that would automatically constitute an application for bene fits at the other Ag ency
. See P ub

. L . N o. 84 -8 81 , 7 0 St a t. 8 57 , 8 62 (Aug . 1 , 1 95 6) . In f ur the ra nc e of thi s ob je c tiv e , th e law h a s ma

nd a te d s inc e 19 56 tha

t th e Se c re tary

and the c om mi ssi on e r o f S SA "jointly presc ribe for

ms" that whe n fi l ed with either Ag ency , "sha ll be deeme d to be anA t o ral a rgume nt , c o unsel for the S ecret ary w as asked t o ad vi se t he Se cret ary of t he i ncreasi ngl y diver gent 3

a p p lica tio n m e tho d s o f S S A a n d V A , an d , t a k ing into a c c o u n t t h e p re v a le n c e a n d p r a c ti c a lit y o f ele c tro n ic
c o m m u n ic a tio n , o f t h e a p p a re n t ne e d to e sta b lish c le a r, u p d a te d re g u la tio n s re g a rd ing w h a t co n stitute s a " jo intly 8 a pp lic a tio n f

or be nefit s" at bo th ag e nc ie s o n th e date the a pp lic a tio n is fi le d. 38 U. S.C. § 5105(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.201. Unfortunately , the imp lementing regulations and policies of the Sec reta ry and commissioner reg ardingthe joint l y p re s cribed forms re quired by law ar e har dly

a model of clar ity . The Sec reta

ry cites no VA r egulations prescribing a joint form betwee n VA and SSA. Rather, he provided ex ce rp t s of the 1980 VA Ad jud ic ati on Pr oc e du re

s M an ua l (M21-1), which state, inter a lia, that when a claim for sur

vivor' s b en ef

i t s h as been f

iled with SS A, and it is the initial claim for VA be nefits, it will be considere d an i n co m p l ete c laim, and the cla imant will be fu rn ish e d a VAF or m 21 -5 34 (A

pp licati on for De pe nd e nc y and I nd e mni ty

Com pe ns a tio n, De a th Pension, an d Ac cr ued B enef its by a Surviving Spouse or Child). Howeve r, the Sec reta ry ind ic a te d at or a l argume nt t hat th e re ha s n e ve r b e e n a n in div idu a l "

joi ntl y pres cri be d f

or m" promulg ated be tween V A and SSA, and the Sec re t ary further acknow ledg ed in his supplemental memorandum to the Court that, in prac tice, a c laim for survivor' s benef its can be filed on any for m , w ithe ith e r V A o r S SA, wh e n th e a pp lic ant r e fl e c ts a

n inte nt to seek su c h b e ne fi ts. Secre tary Supplemental Memorandum ( Sec' y Supp. Memo.) at 8 (" [S ecr etar y ] re q uires only that there be a claim filed, whe ther it is initi ated by SSA or by

the survivor, with suffic ient information to initiate the proce ssing of a cla im."). Simi larly , the Secr etar

y cites no SSA regulations gove rning wha t m i gh t constitute the

" joi ntl y pr e sc ri be d f

or ms" requi red

by law. Mo re ov e r, a lth ou g h th e Se c re tary pr ov ide d e xce rp ts fr om S SA' s Programs Operations Manual System (P OM S) tha t in dicate th at the joi ntl y p re s cr i b edf

o r m s c o n s i s to f V A's Fo rm 2 1 -5 3 4 , an d S S A's Fo rm 2 4 (A p p l i ca t i o nfo r S u rv i v o r's Be nefits), the Sec reta

ry advised the Court that S SA has migr ated a lmost completely awa y from the use of pa

per f orms and now a sks applicants t o apply for be nefits telephonica lly or in person. Parties' J oint Response at 3; Sec' y Supp. Memo. at 6. The ne t result is a wholly unclea r picture of what constitutes a "j ointly presc ribed for

m." Mo re o v er, give n that SSA has larg ely migr ated to aw ardingbenef its without the use of any fo rm , even while the Secret ar y co n t i n ues to adhe re to the ne ed for a for m, the clea

r picture of 3p res cri b ed f o rm" und er 3 8 U

. S.C

. § 5 1 0 5

. W e f ul l y ant i ci p at e t he Se cret ary wi ll d o so
. See Br own , 513 U

. S. a t 118 (" inte rp re tive d o u b t i s to b e re so lve d in the ve te ra n ' s fav o r" ); G ardner v. D er w i nsk i , 1 V e t.A p p . 5 8 4 , 5 8 7 (1 9 9 1 ) (" [P ]la in
m e a n ing m u st b e g ive n e ff e c t u n le ss a ' lit e ra l a p p lica tio n o f [th e ] sta tute w ill p ro d u c e a re su lt d e m o n stra b ly at o d d s w ith t he i nt ent i o n o f

it s d raf t ers
. ' " (quo t i ng G r i

f f i n v. O ceani c Co nt r act ors , I nc. , 4 5 8 U .S . 5 6 4 (1 9 8 2 )) ); see a lso 38 U. S. C. § 72 6 1 (a)( 2 ) ( C o urt m ay co m p el act i o n unreas o nab l y de l ayed).

I t i s n ot c l ea r w h et h er t h e B oar d u n der s t ood t h e Se cr et ar y ' s pr ac t i ce of r ec og n i zi n g t h e dat e of a n y a ppl i ca t i on 4 fo rm re q u e sting su rv ivo r' s b e n e fit s fil e d w ith S S A , a s the e ff e c tive d a te fo r an a p p lica tio n fo r D IC

. C o m p a re R. a t 11 (a d d res si ng whet her M rs
. V an V al kenb urg f i l ed a cl ai m wi t h SS A f o r wi d o w' s b enef

i t s) w ith R. a t 13 ( addr es si ng whether t he M rs
. V an V al kenb urg f i l ed a c l ai m wi t h SS A f o r wi d o w' s b enef

i t s t hat co ul d qua l i f

y as a cl ai m f

o r D IC b en efi t s)

. 9 whateve r mig ht have c onstitut ed such a form in t h e p as t i s now larg ely ineffe ctive in fulfilling t h e i n t en t of Cong ress in passingthe SVSBA. It is in t his context that we a cce pt the Secre tary 's

re pr e se ntatio n th a t any

c la im, su ff

ic ie nt t o r e fl e c t an inte nt t o a pp ly fo r s urvi vo r' s b e ne fi ts, that is fi le d w ithSSA wi ll s uf

fi c e to e sta

bli shthe e ff

e c tiv e date fo r D I C. b. Boa rd De cision as to the Preponde ranc e of the Evidence The B oar d 's d ec i sion noted the numerous re quests by the Secr etar

y to determine whether Mrs. Van V alkenbur g filed an a pplication for SSA survi v o r's b en efits with the commissioner. Howeve r, for

the re asons stated be low, and contr ary to the Boa

rd' s finding tha t t h e we i gh t of the

ev i d en ce supported the c onclusion that no application wa s ever filed, the Court is left with a fir m
c o n v i c t i o nt o t h e c o n t r ar y. Rath e r , a t a mi n im

u m, th e e v id e n c e th a t s u c h an a p p li c a ti on was 4 prese nted within one y ear of the de ath of Mr. V an Va lkenburgis in equipoise. I n this inst ance , we a

re not pre sented with an u n d erde veloped c ase. N either pa rty nor the

rec ord sug g ests this to be so. After more than 10 y ea rs o f d ev elopm ent, including two Court

rema nds for fur

th er d ev elopm ent, one B oard r emand, a nd numerous re quests for infor mation fr om S SA, the re c or d is abo ut a s c omp le te a s it wi ll b e , a

nd the B oa rd ' s f ind ingtha

t th e du ty to assist has been f

u l fi l l ed is plausible and not clea rly err oneous. See G ilbert v. Derwinski , 1 V e t.A pp . 4 9, 52 (1 99 0) (" ' A f

ind ingis " c le arl y

e rr on e ou s" wh en alt houg h th e re is e vid e nc e to support it, the review ing c ourt on the entire evidenc e is left with the def inite and firm convic tion t h at a mi s t ak e ha s b ee n co m m i t t e d

. ' " ( q u o t i n g United States v. U.S. G ypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)) ). We a lso no te that th e pa rt ie s d o n ot d ispu te th e fact that Mr s. Va n V a lke nb ur g is i n
rec eipt of SSA survivor' s benef its, and has bee n since the de ath of he r husband. L ikewise, the10

parties do not dispu t e t h e fa ct that any application for

m reque sting these SSA benefits made at or

ne ar t he tim e of

the de a th o f M r. Va

n V a lkenb urg l ike ly

wo uld have be e n d e str oy e d p ri or to M rs
. Van Va lkenburg ' s 1995 application for DIC, because, a s the Secre tary acknow ledg ed at or al

argume nt, SSA in i ts n or ma l c ours e of

bu sin e ss dest roy s it s r e c or ds a ft e r f ive y e ars . H e re , it

is indisputab l e t h at survivor' s benef its were initiated a

nd awa rded e ither by

an application from Mrs. Van V alkenbur g or sua sponte by SSA through a

utomatic conver sion. Although the Boa

rd found that Mrs. V an Va lkenburgexpressed un ce rt aint y over whether or not s h e filed a claim for SSA survivor's be nefits or whe ther he r bene fits were conver ted upon her husba nd' s death, that is only

one fa ctor to consider

in determining whether

it was at lea st as likely as not that an a

pplication was filed. F or one, the rec ord re flec ts t h at Mrs. Van V alkenbur g fi l ednu m er o u s re qu es t s fo r a s s i s t an ce an d b en ef i t s u p o nt h e d ea t ho f h er

h u s b an d , i n cl u d i n g a reque st that the Secre tary rele ase a ll of her husba nd' s m edical rec ords for the very purpose of seeking " s o c ia l s e r

v ic e s " o r " s o c ia l" b e n e f

it s , in d ic a ti n g th e in te n t to s e e k s u c h b e n e f it s
. R. at 15 10

. Al th oug h at or a l argume nt t he Se c re tary

argue d th e ma ili ngof

a VAF or m 21 -5 34 to M rs
. Van Va lkenburgin Dece mber 1984 wa s trigg ere d by her a pplication for a

U.S. flagfor bur ial purposes, the r eason the application wa s sent is not clear f rom the re cord–f

or instance , it appear s just as like l y t h at i t was sent bec ause the Secre tary rec eived notice that Mrs. Van V alkenbur g had filed a

claim re questing SSA survivor's be nefits, as the M21- 1 would have r equire d. Fur ther, in we ighingthe evidenc e, the Bo ard r elied hea vily on the SSA reports indicating that an applicatio n fo r s u rv i v o r' s benef its was never

filed, but the totality

of the SSA repor

ts on th is u lt im a te is s u e ar e v e r y c o n f li c ti n g , w it

hs e v e r a l r e p o rts s tati n g th a t M r s
. V anV a lke nburg ha d e ith e r f

ile d a n a pp lic a tio n f

or surv iv or's or w ido w' s b e ne fi ts o r t hat sh e a

uto matic a lly becam e e nti tle d to re c e ive su c h b e ne fi ts i n v ari ou s y e ars . N on e of the nume ro us re po rt s c on ta in

a c er t i fi ca t i o nb y

S S A t h at an ap p l i ca t i o nwa s n o tfi l ed

. No n e o f t h e r e p o rt s i n d i ca t i n g s u rv i v o r's be ne fi ts w e re ini tiat ed su a sp on te by SSA pr ov ide c ite s to re le va nt S SA p oli c y

or re g ulatio n in eff ect in the mi d

- 1 9 8 0 s ( o r e v e n to c u r r e n t p o li c y o r r e g u lati o n s to th a t e f f e c t)

. Rath e r , a ll o f

the repor ts appea r to ref lect a c urre nt ( an d conflicting ) under standing by the re porting individuals of SSA's pra ctice a s they

understand it, or a

conflictingunderstandingof what is indi cate d in the limit ed re cords SSA does have . I n sum, the SS A re ports are equally supporti v e o f a fi n ding that Mr s
. V anV a lk e nb u r g b e g anr e c e iv in g s u r v iv o r ' s b e n e f

it s a f te r s h e s u b mi tt e d a f o r m a p p li c a ti onI n l i gh t of o ur d eci s i on t hat t he B oard cl ear l y err ed i n i t s f i ndi ng t hat t he preponder anc e o f t he evi dence was 5 ag ai n s t a n a ppl i ca t i on f or s u r v i v or ' s be n ef

i t s h av i n g be en f

i l ed af t er M r
. V an V al k en bu r g ' s de at h , w e n ee d n ot de ci de wh et h er n ot i f

i ca t i on of

de at h t o SSA t h at re s u l t ed i n a n a wa r d of s u r v i v or ' s be n ef

i t s a l s o c on s t i t u t ed an "a ppl i ca t i on " f or surv i vo r' s b en efi t s f

o r D IC eff

ec t i ve - d ate p urp o ses. 11 re qu e sti ngsu c h b e nefit s, as it is o f a fi nd ingthat th e be ne fi ts w e re ini tiate d s ua sp on te by

SSA throug h automatic conve rsion upon rec eipt of notification that her husband had die d. Ba sed on the totality

of the re cord, a

nd the Secr etar

y 's re p resentation that any ty pe of fo rm fi le d wit h SSAby

Mr s. Va n V a lke nb ur g re qu e sti ngsurv ivo r' s b e ne fi ts w ou ld s uf fi c e to

wa rr an tan ea rl i er

ef fe ct i v e d at e, we ar e l ef

twi t ht h e d ef

i n i t e a n d f

i r m co n v i ct i o nt h at t h e B o ar d 's findi n g th a t th e e v id e n c e w e ig h e d a g a in s t a f in d in g th a t M r s
. V an V a lk e nb u r g f il e d s u c h a form within one y ear

of her husband' s death is clea

rly err o n eo u s , as is the B oard' s finding that she was not entitled to an eff

ective da te of De cembe r 1, 1984 , t h e fi rs t day of the month that her husba nd die d, fo r t he awa rd of DI C be ne fi ts. See Padgett v. Nicholson , 19 Vet.App. 133, 1 4 7 (2005) (en

5 b an c) (" [ I ] f t h e C o u rt h as t h e "'d e f i n i t e an d fi rm co n v i ct i o nt h at a m i s t ak e h as b ee nco m m i t t ed '" by the B oard in findingthat the weig ht of the evide nce pr eponder ated a g ains t t h e cla im on a finding of mater ial fac t, then section 7261(a )(4) and sec tion 72 6 1 (b )(1) require that such a fi n d i n g b e h e l d

cl ea rl y erro n eo u s an d

b e r ev er s edo r s et as i d e. " ( qu o t i n g Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 5)), wi th d r a wn o n o th e r

gr ounds , 1 9 Vet.App. 334 ( 2005), rev'd and remande d , 473 F.3d 1364 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 7) ; s e e a ls o M a r ia n o v
. P r in cipi , 1 7 Ve t

. App. 305, 313 (2003) ( "[T]he outcome of th e Bo ar d' s application of the se ction 5107(b) e quipoise standard is a f actua l determination that this Court reviews under

the ' clea rly err oneous' standard." ). These B oard f

indings will be re verse d, and the matte r re m an d ed for the assig nment of an eff ective date for the awa

rd of DI C of Dec ember

1, 1984, the first day

of the mo n t h i n wh i ch Mr. Van Va lkenburgdied, s ee38 U.S.C. § 5110(d)(1) ( authorizing an ef fec tive date f

or DI C as of the first day of the month of dea

th if an application is filed within one y ear of death), and for

further adjudication as a

ppropriate and consistent with this opinion. These mat ters ar e to be pr ovided expeditious treatment on remand. See38 U. S.C. § 7 11 2; see also Kay v. P r i n ci pi , 16 Vet.App. 529, 534 (2002) ( appellant may prese nt additional evid en ce an d argument in support of matters

rema nded, and the Boa

rd must consider a

ny evidenc e and a

rgument so prese nted).12 III . C ON CL USI ON

For th e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , th e Se p te mb e r 6 , 2 0 0 7 , d e c is io no f

th e B o ar d

d e n yin g an
ear lier ef fec tive date is REVERSED and the matter s R E M AN DE D for the assig nment of an eff ec t i v e date for DI C as of De cembe r 1, 1984, and f urther a djudication as appr opriate a nd consistent with this opi nion.