In Kriner v. McDonough, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) decision denying accrued benefits to Harriet H. Kriner, the surviving spouse of veteran Delbert V. Kriner. The case hinged on whether a March 2015 letter submitted by Mr. Kriner qualified as an "intent to file" under VA regulations, which would have allowed Mrs. Kriner to pursue benefits he had not formally claimed before his death.
Mr. Kriner had previously received non-service-connected (NSC) pension benefits but lost eligibility in 2007 after VA discovered unreported income. After unsuccessfully appealing his pension debt, he paid over $80,000 to VA in 2011 and continued corresponding with VA through 2015, asserting entitlement to compensation.
On March 26, 2015—two days after VA implemented new rules requiring claims to be submitted on standardized forms—VA received a handwritten letter from Mr. Kriner demanding repayment of his prior pension and asserting entitlement to additional benefits. Although this letter referenced disability pension and aid and attendance, it was not submitted on a standardized VA form.
Later that year, in October 2015, VA notified Mr. Kriner that he needed to file his claim using the proper form and provided instructions to submit either a formal application or an intent to file. Mr. Kriner never submitted a follow-up form. He passed away in January 2016.
Following her husband’s death, Mrs. Kriner applied for burial benefits, dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), and accrued benefits based on her husband's prior communications. The VA denied these claims, concluding that no valid claim or intent to file existed at the time of Mr. Kriner’s death. Mrs. Kriner appealed the denial of accrued benefits.
The Veterans Court initially affirmed the denial, but the Federal Circuit later vacated part of that decision, instructing the Court to clarify whether the March 2015 letter qualified as an intent to file under 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(b).
On remand, the Veterans Court analyzed the plain language and structure of VA’s regulation. The Court held that:
As of March 24, 2015, the only valid methods for submitting an intent to file were: (1) a saved electronic application, (2) a written form on the prescribed VA format, or (3) oral communication to VA personnel recorded in writing.
Mr. Kriner’s March 2015 letter did not meet any of these requirements. Although it expressed a desire for benefits and included identifying information, it was not submitted through an authorized method.
VA’s October 2015 letter to Mr. Kriner supported this conclusion by stating that the March submission was insufficient and that standardized forms were required.
The Court rejected Mrs. Kriner’s argument that the use of the word “can” in the regulation allowed for broader submission methods. The Court determined that the structure and purpose of the regulation clearly limited the acceptable formats to the three enumerated in § 3.155(b)(1).
Because Mr. Kriner did not submit a valid claim or an intent to file before his death, the Court affirmed the BVA’s denial of accrued benefits. The ruling clarifies that non-standard letters—even those expressing a clear desire for benefits—do not satisfy VA’s regulatory requirements unless submitted through an approved channel.
Veterans and their families often face challenges navigating VA’s claim procedures. Our attorneys at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC help families understand application requirements, protect their rights to compensation, and challenge improper benefit denials.