Citation Nr: 0007476 Decision Date: 03/20/00 Archive Date: 03/23/00 DOCKET NO. 98-18 364 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, namely paranoid schizophrenia. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 3. Entitlement to service connection for a stomach disorder. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder. 5. Entitlement to service connection for asthma. 6. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Hannan, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant had active service in the Army from May 1967 to May 1969, including a tour in Vietnam. This case originally came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued by the Montgomery, Alabama Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) which denied entitlement to service connection for a back condition, asthma and hypertension and which denied the reopening of the appellant's claims for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a stomach condition. In February 1999, the Board remanded the case to the RO; the RO has now returned the case to the Board for appellate review. The Board notes that the RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), in February 1999, in which the RO characterized the issues of service connection for asthma and hypertension as being ones of new and material evidence. No explanation was offered as to why these issues had been recharacterized; the Board also notes that the three other issues on appeal were not addressed at all in the February 1999 SSOC. The issues on appeal in this case remain as they appear on the title page of both this remand and the February 1999 remand. REMAND The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (known as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals prior to March 1, 1999) (hereinafter Court) has held that a remand by the Court or the Board confers on the veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board originally remanded the case, in February 1999, for the scheduling of a Travel Board hearing. Subsequent to the Board's remand, the appellant submitted an additional VA Form 9 (Appeal to the Board) in which he again indicated that he did want to personally appear at a hearing before a Member of the Board at the RO. The appellant's representative subsequently submitted a VA Form 646, in February 2000, in which he indicated that the appellant's contentions which be further advanced at his requested Travel Board hearing. It appears that the case was inadvertently transferred to the Board prior to the hearing being scheduled or conducted. The representative, in a written presentation at the Board has requested that the matter be referred to the RO for scheduling the Travel Board hearing. Therefore, given the guidance offered by the Court in Stegall, the case must again be remanded. A hearing on appeal must be granted when, as in this case, an appellant expresses a desire for a hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.700(a). In view of the foregoing, this case must again, unfortunately, be REMANDED for the following action: The RO should schedule the appellant for a Travel Board hearing in accordance with applicable procedures pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.704. Also, if he wishes to withdraw his hearing request at any time prior to the hearing being conducted, he should so inform the RO in writing. 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). After the hearing is conducted, or if the hearing request is canceled in writing prior to the hearing being conducted, the matter should be returned to the Board in accordance with the applicable procedures. 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. MICHAEL D. LYON 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).