Citation Nr: 0003645 Decision Date: 02/11/00 Archive Date: 02/15/00 DOCKET NO. 98-09 753 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to a compensable rating for tinnitus. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C.A. Skow, Counsel REMAND The appellant served on active duty from February 1985 to October 1987. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a July 1997 rating decision of the Nashville, Tennessee, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO). The record discloses that notice to the appellant of the January 2000 scheduled hearing was returned as undeliverable because there was "no such address." The record further discloses that the appellant failed to report for that scheduled hearing, likely because he was unaware that the hearing was scheduled. A February 2000 Report of Contact with the appellant's attorney of record reflects that the attorney denied representing the appellant. He reported having 2 different addresses than the Board for the appellant: R.R. 1, Box 253, Crossville, TN 38555, and 262 Coppett Rd, Crossville, TN 38555. To ensure full compliance with due process requirements, VARO should send a letter to the appellant at both of the above listed addresses requesting that the appellant indicate whether or not he still desires a hearing before a member of the Board at the local VA regional office and notifying him of his right to appoint new representation since he is no longer represented by Geary P. Dillon, Jr., (Attorney at Law). If the appellant still wants a hearing, VARO should schedule the appellant for the earliest convenient hearing before a member of the Board at the local VA regional office. The case is REMANDED to VARO for the following: 1. VARO should send a letter to the appellant at both R.R. 1, Box 253, Crossville, TN 38555, and 262 Coppett Rd, Crossville, TN 38555, requesting that he indicate whether or not he still desires a hearing before a member of the Board at the local VA regional office. In these letters, VARO should also notify the appellant that he has the right to appoint new representation since he is no longer represented by Geary P. Dillon, Jr., (Attorney at Law). A file copy of each letter should be associated with the claims folder. 2. If the appellant indicates a desire to appear for a hearing, VARO should schedule this hearing accordingly. 3. This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by VARO. 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 VAROs 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. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The appellant need take no action unless otherwise notified. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter that the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). C.P. RUSSELL 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).