Case A26040720

Summary

The Veteran, who served honorably in the Army from August 1968 to November 1970, had his appeal for specially adapted housing (SAH) and special home adaptation (SHA) grants denied. The Veteran passed away in November 2025, and his daughter-in-law's substitution request was granted. The appeal stemmed from an August 2025 rating decision denying these housing benefits. The Board noted that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including bilateral knee and hip disorders, did not constitute a permanent and total disability that would qualify him for SAH or SHA under the relevant regulations (38 C.F.R. §§ 3.809, 3.809a). Specifically, the combined rating for his musculoskeletal conditions, even with bilateral factors, did not reach 100 percent, and entitlement to TDIU had not been established. The Board found that the Veteran did not meet any of the criteria for SAH, such as having ALS, blindness in both eyes, severe burn contractures, or loss of multiple extremities. Similarly, he did not qualify for an SHA grant as his disabilities did not meet the specific requirements for vision impairment, loss of hands, severe burn contractures, or residuals of inhalation injury. The Board considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine but found the evidence weighed against the claims, making it inapplicable. Therefore, the claims for SAH and SHA grants were denied.

Rationale

Veteran's disabilities not permanent and total; Did not meet criteria for ALS, blindness, severe burns, or loss of extremities; Evidence weighed against the claim

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040720
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250925-590591
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Eligibility for financial assistance in acquiring specially adapted housing (SAH) is denied.

Eligibility for a special home adaptation (SHA) grant is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Veteran did not have a permanent and total service-connected disability.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for eligibility for SAH have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 2101, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.809.

2. The criteria for eligibility for an SHA grant have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 2101, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.809a.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served honorably on active duty from August 1968 to November 1970.  Unfortunately, the Veteran passed away in November 2025 and the appellant is his daughter-in-law.  Her request for substitution has been granted. ??

This appeal comes from an August 2025 Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) rating decision.  See VA Form 10182 AMA Notice of Disagreement (Hearing Review Lane) received in September 2025.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the AMA decision on appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.301.

The?Veteran?testified?before?a Law Judge?in February 2025 and?had?90 days thereafter to?submit?additional?evidence in support of this appeal?pursuant to the AMA Hearing Lane election.?? 

In June 2025, the Board determined that during the period on appeal, the issue of entitlement to a rating of total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) had been raised in connection with the Veteran's claims for increased ratings for the service connected bilateral knee disorders.  See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009).  The Board found that the issue of a TDIU was inextricably intertwined with the current claims on appeal and that it constituted pre-decisional error for the AOJ to have not considered whether entitlement to a TDIU was warranted during the period on appeal.  Therefore, the Board found that it was premature for the Board to adjudicate that claims for SAH and SHA benefits prior to adjudication of the claim for entitlement to a TDIU and remanded the appeal for adjudication of the claim for a TDIU from October 2020.  

In an AMA case, the Board may consider the effect of a rating decision issued after the rating decision on appeal, outside applicable evidentiary window, as the subsequent rating decision is not new evidence, but rather new legal findings.

Here, rating decisions in August 2025 and April 2026 denied the claim for entitlement to a TDIU.  

Accordingly, as this separate appeal is part of the AMA appeals process, the Board will not address it herein, and it will be adjudicated in a future Board decision.

Similarly, in April 2025 the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a rating decision that granted service connection for right and left hip disorders as secondary to the service connected right and left knee disabilities, effective during the period on appeal.  

1. Entitlement to a certificate of eligibility for SAH.

2. Entitlement to a certificate of eligibility for a SHA grant.

During his lifetime, the Veteran asserted that the severity of his disabilities warranted a certificate of eligibility for SAH or an SHA grant. 

Specially Adapting Housing

Financial assistance in acquiring SAH is available to a veteran who has a permanent and total service-connected disability due to: (1) amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) rated as 100 percent under 38 C.F.R. § 4.123a, Diagnostic Code 8017; (2) blindness in both eyes; (3) full thickness or subdermal burns that have resulted in contractures with limitation of motion of two or more extremities or of at least one extremity and the trunk; or (4) the loss or loss of use of both upper extremities such as to preclude use of the arms at or above the elbows.

SAH is also available to a veteran with a permanent and total disability that precludes locomotion due to: (a) the loss or loss of use of both lower extremities; (b) the loss
 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) rated as 100 percent under 38 C.F.R. § 4.123a, Diagnostic Code 8017; (2) blindness in both eyes; (3) full thickness or subdermal burns that have resulted in contractures with limitation of motion of two or more extremities or of at least one extremity and the trunk; or (4) the loss or loss of use of both upper extremities such as to preclude use of the arms at or above the elbows.

SAH is also available to a veteran with a permanent and total disability that precludes locomotion due to: (a) the loss or loss of use of both lower extremities; (b) the loss or loss of use of one lower extremity, together with residuals of organic disease or injury which so affect the functions of balance and propulsion as to preclude locomotion; or (c) the loss or loss of use of one lower extremity together with the loss or loss of use of one upper extremity which so affect the functions of balance or propulsion as to preclude locomotion.  38 U.S.C. § 2101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.809.  The phrase "preclude locomotion" is defined as the necessity for regular and constant use of a wheelchair, braces, crutches, or cane as a normal mode of locomotion, although occasional locomotion by other methods may be possible.  38 C.F.R. § 3.809(c).

Special Home Adaptation

If entitlement to SAH is not established, a veteran can qualify for a grant for necessary special home adaptations, or an SHA grant, if they have a service-connected disability that results in blindness in both eyes with 20/200 visual acuity or less in the better eye with the use of a standard correcting lens or a limitation in fields of vision such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees; such a disability need not be permanent and total in nature.  38 C.F.R. § 3.809a.

Additionally, an SHA grant is available for a veteran that has a permanent and total service-connected disability which:  (1) includes the anatomical loss or loss of use of both hands; (2) is due to deep partial thickness burns that have resulted in contracture(s) with limitation of motion of two or more extremities or of at least one extremity and the trunk; (3) is due to full thickness or subdermal burns that have resulted in contracture(s) of one or more extremities or the trunk; or, (4) is due to residuals of an inhalation injury (including, but not limited to, pulmonary fibrosis, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).  38 C.F.R. § 3.809a (b).

During the period on appeal service connection had been established for:

"	Limitation of extension of the left knee, evaluated as 30% disabling;

"	Limitation of flexion of the left knee, evaluated as 10% disabling;

"	Limitation of extension of the right knee, evaluated as 20% disabling;

"	Scars of the left knee, evaluated as 0% disabling.  

"	Limitation of extension of the left hip, evaluated as 10% disabling; 

"	Limitation of flexion of the left hip, evaluated as 0% disabling;

"	Limitation of extension of the right hip, evaluated as 10% disabling; and

"	Limitation of flexion of the right hip, evaluated as 0% disabling. 

Initially, the Board notes that there is neither evidence nor assertion that service connection has been established for ALS, a burn injury, or a disability resulting in vision impairment.  

Significant in this case, although service connection has been established for bilateral knee disorders, bilateral hip disabilities and scarring, such conditions are not total disabilities.  Even when considering the Veteran's musculoskeletal disabilities as sharing the same etiology and considering them together while applying bilateral factors, the combined rating does not rise to 100 percent, nor has entitlement to a TDIU been established.  As previously noted, the claim for a TDIU remains denied. 

Importantly, eligibility for SAH and an SHA grant are determined by the existing law and regulations that require the Veteran to meet at least one of the criteria enumerated under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.809 or 3.809a, respectively.  In other words, the benefits cannot be granted based upon need or usefulness alone.  

Because service-connection was not established for a burn injury or ALS disability, and he did not have a permanent and total service-connected disability resulting in the loss or permanent loss of use of one or both hands or
 combined rating does not rise to 100 percent, nor has entitlement to a TDIU been established.  As previously noted, the claim for a TDIU remains denied. 

Importantly, eligibility for SAH and an SHA grant are determined by the existing law and regulations that require the Veteran to meet at least one of the criteria enumerated under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.809 or 3.809a, respectively.  In other words, the benefits cannot be granted based upon need or usefulness alone.  

Because service-connection was not established for a burn injury or ALS disability, and he did not have a permanent and total service-connected disability resulting in the loss or permanent loss of use of one or both hands or feet, loss or permanent loss of use of one or both upper or lower extremities, or vision impairment manifesting with the better eye having central visual acuity of 20/200 or a field defect in which the peripheral field has contracted to such an extent that the widest diameter of visual field subtends an angular distance no greater than 20 degrees, he did not qualify as eligible for SAH or an SHA grant under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.809 and 3.809a, respectively.  As such, the claims must be denied.

In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine.  However, as the evidence persuasively weighs against the claims, that doctrine is not applicable.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

The Board is grateful to the Veteran for his service, and regrets that it cannot render a favorable decision in this matter.

 

 

Paul R. Casey

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Azizi, T.

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.