Citation Nr: 0005342 Decision Date: 02/29/00 Archive Date: 03/07/00 DOCKET NO. 95-34 635 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for residuals of a fragmentation wound, left flank, with scars, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for a right thigh disability (herniation of the right sartorius muscle), currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and his spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Christopher P. Kissel, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant is combat-wounded veteran of the Vietnam Conflict. He served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1964 to July 1967. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a May 1994 rating decision of the New Orleans, Louisiana, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded this case in December 1997. REMAND The record reflects that the appellant appeared at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned on November 7, 1996. However, the tape of the hearing was damaged and unfortunately could not be reconstructed. Consequently, the Board sent the appellant a letter in August 1997 advising him of this situation and providing him an opportunity to appear for another hearing. In the letter he was advised that if he did not respond within 30 days from the date of the letter, it would be assumed that he wanted another hearing. He did not respond to this letter and another hearing has not been scheduled. Following the Board's remand of December 1997, a second letter was sent to him in December 1999 advising him that if he did not respond to this letter within 30 days it would be assumed that he wanted a new Travel Board hearing. As he did not respond within the time provided, the Board assumes that he desires another hearing before a traveling member of the Board. In order to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: Unless the hearing before the Board is specifically withdrawn in accordance with the regulations, the RO should schedule the appellant for a hearing to be conducted by the next member of the Board traveling to the RO. The RO should then notify the appellant of the date, time and place of such a hearing by letter mailed to his current address of record. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The purpose of this REMAND is to comply with due process requirements. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the RO. 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 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. JOAQUIN AGUAYO-PERELES 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).