BVA9500385 
DOCKET NO.  93-05 557     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to a waiver of the recovery of an overpayment of
Department of Veterans Affairs death pension benefits, to include
the issue of whether the overpayment was properly created.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Pennsylvania Department of
Military Affairs, Bureau for Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

R. J. Rolfsen, Jr., Counsel

REMAND

The veteran served on active duty from September 1945 to August
1946.  The veteran died in July 1982 and the appellant is his
widow.

Initially, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) finds that the
appellant's claim is "well grounded" within the meaning of 38
U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991).  Therefore, the Board has a duty to
assist the appellant in order to ensure that all relevant
evidence has been properly developed.  Since all relevant
evidence has not been properly developed, a remand is necessary.

A review of the evidence of record reflects that the appellant is
contending that collection of the overpayment of Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) death pension benefits in the amount of
$2,212 would result in an undue hardship.  This overpayment
resulted from the appellant's failure to report her receipt of
interest income for several years from several certificates of
deposit, income which she indicated on a December 1992
Eligibility Verification Report (EVR) would cease in 1993.
Although the appellant has submitted an indication of her monthly
expenses, she has not completed a VA Financial Status Report (VA
Form 4-5655).  The expense reports she has submitted contain
unclear and redundant items.  They also do not include normal
essentials such as food, transportation, clothing or insurance.
She has reported paying rent, power and telephone bills for her
daughter, yet she has indicated that her daughter has married and
she did not claim her daughter as a dependent on the December
1992 EVR.  Furthermore, the financial evidence of record
indicates that the appellant has a monthly deficit of
approximately $450 a month; there is no indication of from what
sources the appellant makes up this monthly deficit.  The
overpayment appears to cover the period from February 1989 to
mid-1992.  It is based primarily on interest income received.
The source of the income is unclear.  At one point the appellant
referred to it as her daughter's money, implying that it might
have been received in settlement of injuries due to an automoble
accident.  While income from dependents is considered, the RO
removed the daughter as a dependent on the appellant's award as
of July 1990.  The award has also used unreimbursed medical
expenses figures which, although reported as monthly, quarterly
and annual payments, were simply added together and appear to
include some duplication.  These factors raise the issue of
whether the overpayment in question was properly created, in the
amount and for the period stated.

Under these circumstances, this case is remanded for the
following action:

1.  The regional office should arrange for
a VA field examiner to interview the
appellant at her home and obtain accurate
and complete income and medical expense
figures from her for every year from 1989
to the present.  This information should
include evidence of her net worth to
include the owner of the certificates of
deposit, the source of the assets, the
current balance of any remaining
certificates of deposit, and a
determination as to who is legally entitled
to the interest income.  Additionally, she
should be requested to complete a current
Financial Status Report.  If a monthly
deficit is shown, the appellant should be
requested to indicate from what sources she
accounts for this deficit.

2.  The regional office should develop for
appeal the issue of whether the overpayment
in question in the current amount was
properly created.  All necessary
development, to include a paid and due
audit covering the period of the
overpayment should be accomplished.  The
appellant should be furnished a full
explanation of the calculations used to
determine the overpayment.

Following the completion of the requested development, the COW
should review the case and a supplemental statement of the case
prepared.  If the claim remains denied, the case should be
returned to the Board following appropriate appellate processing.
No action is required by the appellant until she receives further
notice.  No indication is made by this remand as to the outcome
warranted in this case.

          ROBERT D. PHILIPP
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be
assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination.  This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals.  This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board
on the merits of your appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1993).