Citation Nr: 0006620 Decision Date: 03/10/00 Archive Date: 03/17/00 DOCKET NO. 97-32 029 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston- Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right leg disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. M. Casula, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active, uncharacterized, service from March 21, 1994, to May 23, 1994. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arises from the March 1997 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma, which denied entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder and a right leg disorder. Following issuance of a statement of the case, the case was transferred to the RO in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. In April 1999 this matter was remanded to the RO, and for reasons explained below, this matter must again be remanded for appropriate action by the RO. The Board also notes that during the pendency of the Remand, the veteran moved to Florida. REMAND In the April 1999 Remand, the Board directed the RO to contact the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs and ascertain whether that organization will still represent the veteran despite her move to another state (North Carolina). If so, that organization was to be given the opportunity to provide a Statement of Accredited Representative in support of the appeal. If not, the veteran was to be so informed and given the opportunity to obtain other representation. The record reflects that the RO sent letters to the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs in April and May 1999, advising them of the veteran's current address in each letter. In February 2000 the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs responded that since the veteran left the state of Oklahoma, they had not helped or represented her with her case, and indicated that they did not wish to file or write a 646 for her. The Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs also requested that the claims file be returned to the Board "if all remand issues have been met". The record reflects that the RO immediately returned the case to the Board for review. Although the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs is still the representative of record, and its appointment has not been revoked, it nonetheless appears that the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs has essentially indicated that they do not wish to represent the veteran in this appeal and that they have not contacted her since she left the state of Oklahoma. In that regard, the Board finds that the RO, after receiving the response from the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs, should have sent a letter to the veteran, at her current address of record in Florida, advising her of the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs response, and providing her the opportunity to obtain other representation. As previously noted, inasmuch as the veteran has indicated her desire for representation, she is entitled to have a representative of her choice to submit a statement in support of her appeal. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran at her current address and advise her of the response from the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs and provide her with opportunity to obtain other representation. 2. Thereafter, the RO should review the veteran's claim on the basis of the full record, including any response from the veteran or any additional presentation made by a representative. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The appellant need take no action until otherwise notified. Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 141 (1992); Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 109 (1995). 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). The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information and to ensure due process of law. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim as a result of this action. 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 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. 1999) (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. C. W. SYMANSKI 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).