A veteran received concurrent RSDI/SSI benefits from 12/95 through 6/00. On 7/1/00,
he became a resident of the Philippines and on 8/4/00 was notified that he was entitled
to concurrent RSDI/SVB payments. (His SSI benefits were suspended in 7/00.)
On 11/13/01, SSA discovered that a clerical error had been made when the veteran's
RSDI benefit was computed. The initial RSDI determination, dated 12/24/95, was based
on a clerical error which was unfavorable to the beneficiary. Under the RSDI rules
for administrative finality, the determination could be reopened and revised at any
time. The notice of the revised determination (dated 11/19/01) indicated that the
veteran's RSDI benefit was increased by $250 per month from the first month of RSDI
entitlement and continuing to the present.
As a result of the revised RSDI determination, the veteran's unearned income (for
SSI purposes) had to be increased by the additional $250 per month he was receiving
in RSDI benefits. As a result, his unearned income was too high to meet the eligibility
requirements for SSI benefits at any time from 12/95. However, the initial determination
relating to his SSI payments could be reopened and revised from 12/99 through 5/00
only. (Counting back 2 years from 11/13/01, the earliest “deemed” determination that
could be reopened and revised was the deemed determination of 12/1/99.) (See SI 04070.030B.1.)
The veteran's ineligibility for SSI in 12/99 made him unable to qualify for SVB payments.
Since the initial determination that he qualified for SVB (dated 8/4/00) was within
2 years of the discovery of the RSDI clerical error on 11/13/01, the SVB initial determination
could be reopened and revised.
A veteran was entitled to SSI payments in 1/95 at age 78. He became entitled to SVB
in 6/00 on the basis of evidence establishing residence in the Philippines 6/1/00.
His SSI payments were suspended in the same month.
In a redetermination interview on 6/3/03, new and material evidence came to light
showing that the veteran had been living in the Philippines since 5/95. (He never
reported his 1995 move abroad and filed for SVB while he was in the United States
for a 3-week visit with his son.) Fraud or similar fault was not pursued on account
of the veteran's age, ill health and limited ability to understand English (see VB 02507.020B.2., GN 04110.010).
The veteran's determination of SSI eligibility could not be reopened. The last deemed
determination of his SSI eligibility was 5/1/00, the month before his benefits were
suspended. This was more than two years before 6/03, when SSA discovered his long-time
The initial determination of the veteran's qualification for SVB was made in a letter
of 5/11/00. This was an erroneous determination since the veteran was not eligible
for SSI in 12/99 or in 5/00, the month he filed for SVB payments. However, over two
years had elapsed between the SVB determination and SSA's discovery in 6/03 of the
beneficiary's move to the Philippines in 5/95. Thus the SVB determination cannot be
reopened retroactively, but benefits can be suspended prospectively on the basis of
Same facts as above except that SSA learned of and documented the beneficiary's 5/95
move to the Philippines on 8/1/01. As a result, the deemed determinations of his SSI
eligibility could be reopened and revised from 8/99 through 5/00. The initial determination
of his qualification for SVB could also be reopened and revised since the notice of
qualification (dated 5/11/00) was within two years of SSA's affirmative action in
writing dated 8/2/01.