(a) General—(1) Veteran. All or part of the pension or disability compensation payable to any veteran may be apportioned for the veteran's spouse, child, or children, or, in the case of disability compensation but not pension, for the veteran's dependent parent, if one of the following conditions exist:
(i) The veteran is incompetent and is being furnished hospital treatment, nursing home, or domiciliary care by the U.S., or any political subdivision thereof; or
(ii) The veteran is incarcerated and meets the conditions of § 3.665 or § 3.666.
(2) Surviving spouse. Where a child or children of a deceased veteran is not living with the veteran's surviving spouse because the surviving spouse is incarcerated and meets the conditions of § 3.665 or § 3.666, the dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) or pension otherwise payable to the surviving spouse may be apportioned to the child or children. No apportionment shall be payable to a child who did not reside with the surviving spouse prior to incarceration.
(b) Apportionment to a child on active duty. No apportionment of disability or death benefits will be made or changed solely because a child has entered active duty. If an apportionment is claimed for a child on active duty on the date the apportionment claim is received by VA, no apportionment will be made. If an apportionment is being paid to the veteran's spouse and includes an amount for a child, and the child enters active duty, no change in the apportionment will be made.
(c) Apportionment of death benefits. Any amounts payable for children under §§ 3.454 and 3.455 will be equally divided among the children.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5307, 5502(d))
[91 FR 905, Jan. 9, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1993–2020 · leading case:
Batcher v. Wilkie, 975 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Batcher v. Wilkie, 975 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
· cites it 2× “But the Board found that the evidence did support special apportionment under 38 C.F.R. § 3.451 because Ms. Batcher had shown a hardship—with ex- penses exceeding her income and reported periods of home- lessness—and Mr.”
Hall v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 294 (Vet. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 3.451 (1992). In denying the veteran’s request that the apportionment of his pension be discontinued, the BVA stated, “Since Pamela does not reside with the veteran and since he does not otherwise contribute to her support, we find that apportionment of a share of…”
Costa v. West, 11 Vet. App. 102 (Vet. App. 1998).
“However, as the Secretary notes, by the promulgation of 38 C.F.R. § 3.451 (1997), the Secretary has limited his discretion under 38 U.”
John J. Batcher v. Robert L. Wilkie (Vet. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “" 38 C.F.R. § 3.451 (2018). Special apportionment is awarded "on the basis of the facts in the individual case as long as it does not cause undue hardship to the other persons in interest," with certain exceptions not applicable here.”
190520-12370 (Board of Vet. App. 2020).
· cites it 3× “Ordinarily, apportionment of more than 50 percent of the Veteran’s benefits would constitute undue hardship on him or her, while apportionment of less than 20 percent of his or her benefits would not provide a reasonable amount for any apportionee.”
11-02 249 (Board of Vet. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “See 38 C.F.R. § 3.451 (2014). The second type of apportionment is a special apportionment, which may be paid under the circumstances set forth in 38 C.”
190913-32434 (Board of Vet. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “The second type of apportionment is a “special” apportionment, which may be paid under the circumstances set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.451 . That regulation provides that, without regard to any other provision regarding apportionment, where hardship is shown to exist, compensation…”
Buholtz v. Snyder, 680 F. App'x 922 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
“665 (e), which allows “[a]ll or part of the compensation not paid to an incarcerated veteran” to be apportioned “to the veteran’s spouse, child or children and dependent parents on the basis of individual need.”
Yann Iannucci v. Julie Michelle Jones (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“Iannucci hangs his hat on a September 24, 2013 letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, denying a request to “apportion” his benefits between himself and his children. The VA “decided that the claim for an apportionment must be denied because an apportionment would cause…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.