Citation Nr: 0006699 Decision Date: 03/13/00 Archive Date: 03/17/00 DOCKET NO. 95-30 055 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Oakland, California THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for bilateral Morton's neuroma, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a bee sting. 3. Entitlement to service connection for temporomandibular joint syndrome. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mark D. Chestnutt, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had periods of active duty, active duty for training and inactive duty training from October 1978 to January 1979, from August 1979 to December 1979, from January 1981 to September 1983, and reportedly as late as 1985. This appeal stems from January 1991, August 1991 and August 1994 rating decisions of the RO. REMAND On a VA Form 9, received in October 1996, the veteran requested to have a hearing before a member of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) at the RO. The RO apparently construed this request to involve only a claim of service connection for an eye disability, which was later granted. The veteran, however, submitted this request following an August 1996 supplemental statement of the case that addressed other issues on appeal, and did not limit her contentions on that VA Form 9 to the eye issue. The Board finds that clarification is necessary to determine whether the veteran still wishes to have a Travel Board hearing. Although the veteran has had a hearing before a hearing officer at the RO, she is still entitled to a hearing before the Board if requested. Therefore, this remand is required to ensure that VA has properly afforded the veteran due process. It is a basic principle of veterans' law that the Board shall decide an appeal only after affording the claimant an opportunity for a hearing. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999). Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (1999), a hearing on appeal before the Board will be granted if an appellant expresses a desire to appear in person. Under the circumstances, the Board remands this case to the RO for the following action: The veteran should be scheduled to appear at a personal hearing before a member of the Board sitting at the RO as soon as it may be feasible. The purpose of this remand is to ensure due process of law. No action by the veteran is required, until he is so notified. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (known as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals prior to March 1, 1999) for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1998) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03. Thomas J. Dannaher Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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) (1999).