Citation Nr: 0000491 Decision Date: 01/07/00 Archive Date: 01/11/00 DOCKET NO. 94-14 299 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a thoracic spine injury, claimed as a mid back disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a head injury, to include headaches. 3. Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a nose injury. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a pulmonary disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. L. Prichard, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from August 1988 to January 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of rating decisions of the Seattle, Washington, regional office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The record shows that a Statement of the Case for the issues of entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability and entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a dental trauma was issued in July 1999. The veteran has not submitted a Substantive Appeal for these issues, and they are not before the Board. The veteran contends that he has sustained several disabilities as a result of active service. He argues that he has a current disability of the thoracic spine as a result of the same injury which resulted in his service connected lumbar spine disability. The veteran also contends that he has headaches due to several blows to his head in service, with the most severe blow to his head from a door, and notes that he is service connected for an injury to his lip as a result of the same trauma. He argues that he injured his nose at the same time as the head and lip, and that he has residual disability due to this injury. Finally, the veteran contends that he has a pulmonary disability, and notes that he has problems when experiencing chest pains. The record shows that the veteran served on active duty in the Southwest Asia Theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War. Furthermore, the Board notes that many of the veteran's complaints, specifically headaches, difficulty breathing, and joint and muscle pains, are symptoms of undiagnosed illnesses pursuant to the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 (1999). The RO considered entitlement to compensation under 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 in an October 1997 rating decision, but the December 1997 and July 1999 Supplemental Statements of the Case issued following this decision did not address the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.317. A February 1998 statement from the veteran refers to the December 1997 Supplemental Statement of the Case, and expresses the belief that his symptoms may be the result his service in the Persian Gulf region. The Board finds that this aspect of the veteran's claim must be developed further. As the issues of entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a thoracic spine injury, entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a head injury, entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a nose injury, and entitlement to service connection for a pulmonary disability are each inextricably intertwined with the issue of entitlement to compensation for an undiagnosed illness as a result of service in the Persian Gulf region, they may not be addressed at this time. Therefore, to ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the veteran in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is remanded to the RO for the following development: The RO should consider the issue of entitlement to compensation under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 for disability due to undiagnosed illnesses. If entitlement to compensation is denied, the veteran and representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case that contains and discusses the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.317, and the veteran and his representative should be provided with the appropriate time in which to respond. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The veteran need take no other action unless otherwise 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 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. 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) (1998).