Citation Nr: 0003255 Decision Date: 02/09/00 Archive Date: 02/15/00 DOCKET NO. 97-03 134 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston- Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Whether the veteran may be considered to have a serious employment handicap for purposes of an extension of his entitlement to vocational training and rehabilitation under Chapter 31 of Title 38, United States Code. 2. Whether the veteran's entitlement to benefits pursuant to a vocational training and rehabilitation program under Chapter 31 of Title 38, United States Code, during the Summer of 1995, included payment for the purchase of a computer. 3. Entitlement to an increased rating for the residuals of a left hand injury, currently evaluated as 40 percent disabling. 4. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than in September 1994, for a 40 percent rating for the residuals of a left hand injury. 5. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than in September 1994, for special monthly compensation for the loss of use of the left hand. WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michael E. Kilcoyne, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from August 1984 to February 1986. The current case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) out of the Winston-Salem regional office (RO). In May 1999, the veteran appeared at a tele-video conference hearing conducted by the undersigned. The veteran is not represented in his appeal. A review of the record reflects that, in addition to the matters set forth on the first page of this decision, the veteran appears to have raised, in an October 1998 statement, a claim for entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability. He also discussed this matter at the hearing conducted in May 1999. It appears that the veteran is employed full time, but the claims file does not show that this matter has been addressed by the RO. Thus, it is not properly before the Board at this time, and, since it is not inextricably intertwined with any other matter before the Board, it is referred to the RO for appropriate action. In addition, the veteran also raised a claim for entitlement to a clothing allowance at the hearing conducted in May 1999. Although the record reflects that a similar claim was denied by the RO in September 1998, his more recent claim in that regard has yet to be addressed. Since this too, is not inextricably intertwined with the other issues before the Board, it is also referred to the RO for appropriate action. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran is service connected for the residuals of a left hand injury for which a 40 percent schedular disability rating is assigned; he has been awarded special monthly compensation on account of the loss of use of his left hand; and he is service connected for headaches for which a noncompensable evaluation is assigned; his non-service connected disabilities include an ear disorder, and he has complained that he currently has a back disorder and diabetes. 2. Since his discharge from active service in 1986, the veteran has acquired more than 10 years of employment experience in the computer industry and, since 1997, he has been employed as a computer systems manager for the City College of New York, earning $52,000 per year. 3. The veteran does not have a prior history of poor adjustment in training and employment; he has not had substantial periods of unemployment or an unstable work history; nor has he withdrawn from society or exhibited a continuing dependency on government income support programs. 4. In June 1995, the veteran was authorized enrollment under the provisions of Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code, in a course conducted between June 1995 and September 1995 at Baruch College, to become a "Certified Novell Engineer." 5. Ownership of a computer and its associated equipment was not a course requirement during the veteran's Summer 1995 training, although VA rented a computer for the veteran's home use during this training period. 6. The rental of a computer and its associated equipment for use during the veteran's Summer 1995 training is not shown to have in any way mitigated or compensated the veteran for the effects of his disability; and there is no evidence that the outright ownership of a computer at that time would have mitigated or compensated the veteran for the effects of his disability. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria to establish the presence of a serious employment handicap pursuant to Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code, for the purposes of extending the veteran's period of entitlement to benefits under this chapter are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5107, 3101 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.41, 21.42, 21.44, 21.52 (1999). 2. The veteran's entitlement to benefits pursuant to a vocational training and rehabilitation program under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code, in the Summer of 1995, did not include payment for the purchase of a computer. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5107, 3104(7)(A) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.212(a), 21.212(b), 21.212(d), 21.219(c) (1999). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Serious Employment Handicap The veteran's claim as to this issue is well-grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). That is, the Board finds that he has presented a plausible claim. The Board is also satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed and that no further assistance to the veteran is required to comply with the duty to assist mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. In this case, the veteran seeks to establish that he is under a serious employment handicap for VA purposes, in order to extend his eligibility for vocational rehabilitation training assistance under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code. Applicable criteria provide that a rehabilitation program under Chapter 31 may not be afforded to a veteran after the end of the 12-year period beginning on the date VA notifies the veteran of the existence of a compensable service- connected disability. 38 U.S.C.A. § 3101(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 21.41, 21.42(a). The basic period of eligibility for vocational rehabilitation may be extended, however, if the veteran has a serious employment handicap and he has not previously been rehabilitated to the point of employability or if he has been previously declared rehabilitated to the point of employability, either his service-connected disability has worsened to the extent that he is unable to perform the duties of the occupation in which he is trained, or in a related occupation; or the occupation in which the veteran was rehabilitated to the point of employability is not presently suitable in view of the veteran's current employment handicap and capabilities; or occupational requirements have changed and additional services are needed to help the veteran continue in the occupation in which he was trained or in a related field. 38 C.F.R. § 21.44. A serious employment handicap is defined as a significant impairment resulting in substantial part from a service- connected disability rated at 10 percent or more, of a veteran's ability to prepare for, obtain, or retain employment consistent with such veteran's abilities, aptitudes, and interests. 38 U.S.C.A. § 3101(7). Moreover, a serious employment handicap may exist when the veteran has a prior history of poor adjustment in training and employment, and special efforts will be needed if the veteran is to be rehabilitated; or the veteran's situation presents special problems due to non-service-connected disability, family pressures, etc., and a number of special and supportive services are needed to effect rehabilitation. 38 C.F.R. § 21.52(d). In addition, a finding of serious employment handicap may be made when the veteran's service- connected disability has caused substantial periods of unemployment or unstable work history; as well as when the veteran has demonstrated a pattern of maladaptive behavior which is shown by a history of withdrawal from society or continuing dependency on government income support programs. 38 C.F.R. § 21.52(e). Here, the veteran was first advised of his award of compensation for service-connected disability payable at the 10 percent rate in November 1987. Therefore, absent a finding that he is under a serious employment handicap, his eligibility for Chapter 31 benefits expired in November 1999. (Although not particularly germane to this aspect of the veteran's appeal, it is observed that, since his initial award of benefits, when it was determined that the residuals of a fracture of the left index finger were considered 10 percent disabling, the veteran's disability in this regard was re-characterized as residuals of a left hand injury, for which a 40 percent disability rating was made effective from September 1994. In addition, the veteran has also been awarded special monthly compensation on account of the loss of use of this hand, effective from September 1994.) In addition to the disability of his left hand, the veteran is also service connected for headaches, rated as noncompensably disabling. The veteran's non-service connected disabilities include an ear disorder, and he has complained that he currently also has a back disorder and diabetes. The veteran's records reflect that, since his separation from service in 1986, he has made a number of applications for benefits pursuant to Chapter 31. Following one such application in 1995, he was authorized training benefits for a computer class that took place during the Summer of 1995. After the completion of that class, the veteran obtained employment in March 1996, as a computer network coordinator earning $16.83 per hour at the North Carolina Central University. In view of that employment, he was declared to have been rehabilitated in May 1996. However,in September 1996, the veteran lost his job at North Carolina Central University and, in August 1997, his "rehabilitated" status was overturned. He was subsequently authorized benefits, under the provisions of Chapter 31, to pursue a doctorate degree at St. John's University beginning in the Fall of 1997, which course of study he did not apparently actually begin until the Spring 1998 semester. In March 1998, a counseling record reflects that the veteran sought a determination as to whether he had a serious employment handicap. Presumably, inquiries in this regard were made since the veteran's degree at St. John's would apparently not be earned until 2004, well after the expiration of the basic 12-year period of eligibility for Chapter 31 benefits had passed Therefore, it would have been necessary for him to have obtained an extension of this eligibility, which was otherwise due to terminate in November 1999. In April 1998, the veteran was advised by the RO that he was not considered to have a serious employment handicap, and he was informed of his appellate rights. In a letter from the veteran that was apparently received in October 1998, he expressed his disagreement with the decision that found him not to have a serious employment handicap, and a statement of the case was issued in December 1998. A substantive appeal in this regard was received later that month. At the hearing conducted by the undersigned in May 1999, the veteran maintained that, in view of the current disability evaluation assigned for his service-connected left hand disorder, he should be considered to have a serious employment handicap, and his eligibility for Chapter 31 benefits should be extended for another 12 years. As indicated above, the veteran maintains that he has a serious employment handicap, which should entitle him to an extension of his eligibility for Chapter 31 benefits. In this regard, it is obvious that, by virtue of the 40 percent schedular rating for his service-connected hand disability, together with his entitlement to special monthly compensation for loss of use of that hand, he may be considered to have a significant disability. Similarly, it is stating the obvious that this disability would cause the veteran to have an employment or vocational handicap. This vocational handicap was explicitly recognized by virtue of the veteran's award of Chapter 31 benefits to pursue a doctorate program at St. John's University, and in a November 1998 Counseling record prepared by a Counseling Psychologist after an interview with the veteran. What defines the presence of a serious employment handicap for VA purposes, however, as set out in the law and regulations cited above, does not turn on the percentage of disability found to exist. Indeed, the veteran need only have a service-connected disability rated at 10 percent in order to meet the threshold requirement. Rather, the evidence must also show that there is an impairment in the ability to prepare for, obtain, or retain employment consistent with a veteran's abilities, aptitudes, and interests. As previously indicated, this can manifest itself when the veteran has a prior history of poor adjustment in training and employment, and special efforts will be needed if the veteran is to be rehabilitated; or the veteran's situation presents special problems due to non-service- connected disability, family pressures, etc., and a number of special and supportive services are needed to effect rehabilitation. This kind of impairment can also be seen when the veteran's service-connected disability has caused substantial periods of unemployment or an unstable work history; or the veteran has demonstrated a pattern of maladaptive behavior which is shown by a history of withdrawal from society or continuing dependency on government income support programs. The record of the veteran's educational pursuits following his separation from service shows that he attended the City College of New York of the City University of New York in 1988, and between 1990 and 1993 when he apparently earned a bachelor's degree in Urban Legal Studies. Between June 1995 and September 1995, the veteran completed the classroom work to become a Certified Novell Engineer (a computer-related position), and, in January 1998, he apparently began the course work for a Doctorate of Arts in Modern World History at St. John's University. (It is unclear whether he continues to pursue that degree.) The veteran's postservice work history reflects that, between November 1987 and June 1995, he was a computer laboratory manager with the New York City Board of Education. Between March and September 1996, he was a computer network coordinator for the North Carolina Central University, and, according to a resume the veteran has provided, between December 1996 and August 1997 he worked as an independent consultant as a computer applications support engineer and a computer network administrator. The record further indicates that, from November 1997 to the present, the veteran has been employed as a computer systems manager for the City College of New York, earning $52,000 per year. In summary, since the veteran's discharge from service in 1986, he has acquired more than 10 years of experience in the computer technology related field. More than seven of those years, prior to 1995, were with a single employer, the New York City Board of Education, and, since November 1997, the veteran has been employed by the City College of New York. During the same period, the veteran was also able to earn a bachelor's degree, he completed a technical course, and he apparently has begun a doctoral program. In the Board's view, the foregoing record does not depict an individual who has had a history of poor adjustment in training and employment, and there is no suggestion that any particular special circumstances exist due to non-service connected disability or family pressures that are interfering with the veteran's vocational pursuits. Nor does this record reflect what may be considered substantial periods of unemployment or an unstable work history. Certainly, between 1995 and 1997, the veteran had a number of different jobs, one of which, at least (at North Carolina Central University), was apparently terminated due to the veteran's lack of particular technical competence. Moreover, the veteran also appears to have depended, in part, upon public assistance benefit programs during those years. The Board appreciates that this two-year period without steady employment (actually somewhat less than 20 months, when considering the employment the veteran reported and his school attendance) may have been difficult to endure at the time. We note, however, that, in the context of the veteran's overall impressive employment and education history, that time period represents a brief aberration, rather than the norm. In our view, it would not support the conclusion that the veteran is a person who has withdrawn from society or has developed a continuing dependency on government income support programs. Moreover, given the veteran's many years of successful employment in the high technology computer field, together with his consistent pursuit of such employment, it may reasonably be concluded that this employment is consistent with the veteran's aptitudes and interests. For the reasons set forth above, it is the Board's conclusion that the evidence does not show the veteran has a significant impairment of his ability to prepare for, obtain, or retain employment that is consistent with his abilities, aptitudes, and interests. Accordingly the veteran may not be considered to have a serious employment handicap for purposes of an extension of his entitlement to vocational training and rehabilitation under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code. Payment for the Purchase of a Computer The veteran's claim in this regard is also considered well- grounded under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107, since it is plausible that VA is required to include the purchase of a computer as among the supplies it provides in connection with the veteran's pursuit of VA-authorized training. The Board is also satisfied that all relevant facts in regard to this matter have been obtained, and the veteran has not indicated that any further pertinent records are available. Accordingly, no further assistance to the veteran is required to comply with the duty to assist him in developing the claim. Under applicable law, services and assistance which VA may provide under Chapter 31, pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, include supplies and equipment determined by the Secretary to be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the rehabilitation program in the individual case. 38 U.S.C.A. § 3104(7)(A). Pertinent regulations provide that a veteran will be furnished supplies that are necessary for a program of rehabilitation services. 38 C.F.R. § 21.212(a). Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 21.212(b), VA will authorize only those supplies which are: (1) To be used by similarly circumstanced non- disabled persons in the same training or employment situation; (2) To mitigate or compensate for the effects of the veteran's disability while he is being evaluated, trained, or assisted in gaining employment; or (3) To allow the veteran to function more independently and thereby lessen his dependence on others for assistance. In addition, as to supplies needed, but not specifically required: VA may determine that an item, such as a calculator, while not required by the school for the pursuit of a particular school subject, is nevertheless necessary for the veteran to successfully pursue his program under the provisions of § 21.156 pertaining to incidental goods and services. The item may be authorized if: (1) It is generally owned and used by students pursuing the course; and (2) Students who do not have the item would be placed at a distinct disadvantage in pursuing the course. 38 C.F.R. § 21.212(d) Moreover, items which could be used personally by the veteran may only be furnished if required by the facility to meet requirements for degree or course completion. 38 C.F.R. § 21.219(c). A review of the record in this case reflects that, since the veteran's separation from service in 1986, he has submitted a number of applications for vocational rehabilitation benefits. The application out of which the present case arises was apparently received in February 1995. Thereafter, the veteran was authorized training benefits for a specific program he had chosen, a 1995 Summer course conducted between June and September at Baruch College in New York City, to become a "Certified Novell Engineer." (A Certified Novell Engineer, or CNE, is evidently a type of computer specialist.) In June 1995, the RO received a letter from the Manager of the Computer Programs at Baruch College, on behalf of the veteran, in which she advised that, in order for the veteran "to have sufficient lab time to practice at home, it would be advisable for him to have a PC Model 486 or 586 with Fax, CD ROM etc., so that he can access the computer center from home." Later that month, or in early July 1995, a letter was received at the RO from the organization which apparently was actually providing the instruction the veteran was scheduled to receive, Westcon Service. In that letter, from an Account Manager, it was again indicated that, in order for the veteran "to have sufficient time to practice at home with the assessment diskette, and to practice his DOS, etc., it would be advisable for him to have a PC model 486 computer." In a letter from the RO to the veteran dated June 29, 1995, it was indicated that a conversation had taken place between personnel at the RO and the individual from Westcon Service who had written the letter described in the preceding paragraph. That person indicated that ownership of a computer was not actually required for the veteran's program, since adequate lab time could be provided at the school for the veteran to complete his projects and prepare for CNE examinations. Nevertheless, VA offered to rent a computer for the veteran while he was in training, and a document, signed by the veteran in July 1995, reflects that he agreed to the computer rental. Invoices and other documents associated with the claims file reflect that a computer and its associated equipment were subsequently rented, at VA expense, for the veteran's use. The rental period evidently began in July 1995, and the veteran apparently retained the use of this equipment through December 1995. Thereafter, the sequence of events is not entirely clear, but the record appears to reflect that, in January 1996, the veteran was authorized training benefits, pursuant to Chapter 31, to enroll in a Master of Science degree program in Computers in Education at Long Island University, for the Spring 1996 semester. Evidently, however, the veteran did not actually register for this course of study, and, in March 1996, he was hired at the North Carolina Central University as a computer network coordinator, earning $16.83 per hour. In the same letter in which the veteran advised that he was employed in North Carolina, he also advised that he had obtained this employment by virtue of the training he had completed the previous Summer through VA assistance, but that he had not yet taken the nine tests that were apparently required to actually obtain certification as a CNE. He also voiced a desire to attend law school, which VA apparently had previously determined to be an inappropriate vocational pursuit for purposes of authorizing training benefits. In May 1996, the veteran was evidently considered "rehabilitated" for VA purposes, having obtained employment in the field in which he had been trained. Thereafter, however, the veteran apparently was not retained in his position with North Carolina Central University, as his job there was terminated in September 1996. That same month, the veteran wrote to VA on a VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim) requesting, among other things, "documentation giving authority to rent which I believe the purchase of P.C. was correct." In the context of the veteran's association with VA Vocational Rehabilitation services, this is an apparent reference to the computer equipment rented for his use during his class work in the Certified Novell Engineer course. In November 1996, the RO provided the veteran with citations to various statutes, regulations, and manuals as related to providing supplies and equipment in connection with authorized training under Chapter 31. Shortly thereafter, the RO received a letter from the veteran in which he asserted that the RO should have purchased him a computer the previous Summer, since he currently needed one on which to practice the skills necessary to successfully complete the nine examinations he still had not taken to obtain certification as a Novell Engineer. The veteran also expressed his belief that his lack of access to his own computer prevented him from honing the skills needed to have been retained at his job in North Carolina. At the hearing conducted by the undersigned in May 1999, the veteran restated his arguments that he should be provided his own computer on which to practice skills needed to become certified as a network engineer, and he indicated that he has never become certified in that regard. On the foregoing record, it seems clear that the purchase of a computer for the veteran's use during his studies, in the Summer of 1995, would have been convenient for him at the time, since he apparently would have been able to perform his course work, and to practice for certification examinations, in the comfort of his own home. Nevertheless, information obtained from the organization that was providing his instruction during that period reflects that computer ownership was not a course requirement, since access to computers was provided to the student in a laboratory setting for use in course projects and in preparation for certification examinations. That notwithstanding, the record shows that the veteran was in fact provided, at no additional cost to him, a computer and its associated equipment for his home use by VA, while he was taking the course. Thus, the veteran apparently was able to perform his course work and prepare, at least in part, for his examinations in the comfort of his own home and at times convenient to him. (There is also evidence in the record to suggest that it was still necessary for the veteran to make use of the school's computer lab in order to perform certain computer assembly and disassembly tasks required by the course.) In any case, the record shows that, thereafter, the training course came to its conclusion, after which the veteran returned the computer equipment which VA had rented for his use, and then succeeded in obtaining employment in the computer field. Although, for reasons that are not made clear in the record, the veteran did not take the examinations necessary for actual certification in the field in which he had been trained, and he was subsequently terminated from the job he had obtained, the record does not in any way establish that VA's rental of a computer for the Summer-of-1995 training course, as opposed to a purchase of a computer for the veteran at that time, played any role in these events. The Board is aware that applicable statutes and regulations permit VA to purchase computers as part of the supplies used in the course of training. However, it is clear, in the veteran's case, that ownership of a computer was not a course requirement; that actual ownership of a computer would not have mitigated or compensated for the effects of the veteran's service-connected disability any more than temporary use of a rented computer; and that purchase of a computer by VA would not have represented an acquisition of a merely incidental item, such as a calculator. Moreover, of overriding significance in this matter is that the veteran was in fact provided access to a computer, for use at home in the course he was taking, by virtue of VA's rental of that equipment. Under these circumstances, the Board finds that the scope of the veteran's entitlement to benefits pursuant to a vocational training and rehabilitation program under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code, did not include payment for the purchase of a computer in connection with his Summer 1995 enrollment in a program to become a Certified Novell Engineer. The Board appreciates the veteran's forceful and sincere testimony at the hearing before the undersigned. Unfortunately, we must conclude, based upon the evidence before us in this appeal, that he is not entitled to the payment of additional benefits under Chapter 31 at this time. ORDER Under the facts of this case, the veteran does not have a serious employment handicap for purposes of an extension of his entitlement to vocational training and rehabilitation under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code, and his appeal in this regard is denied. The veteran's entitlement to benefits pursuant to a vocational training and rehabilitation program under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code, did not include payment for the purchase of a computer for use during a Summer 1995 period of training, and his appeal in this regard is denied. REMAND Under applicable criteria, a perfected appeal to the Board of a particular decision entered by a Department of Veterans Affairs regional office consists of a notice of disagreement in writing received within one year of the decision being appealed and, after a statement of the case has been furnished, a substantive appeal received within 60 days of the issuance of the statement of the case or within the remainder of the one-year period following notification of the decision being appealed. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(3); 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). With respect to the veteran's claim for an increased rating for his left hand disability, it is observed that the veteran submitted a claim for that benefit in September 1994, at which time it was rated as 10 percent disabling. In a June 1995 rating action, the RO determined that the veteran's claim in this regard was not well grounded. The veteran expressed his disagreement with that decision later that month, and, in May 1997, the RO issued a statement of the case. Again, however, the issue addressed in that document was whether the veteran's claim was well grounded. It did not include citation to applicable law and regulations regarding the substantive criteria considered in assigning increased disability ratings. As it happens, the RO then determined that the veteran's claim was well grounded, and, in a November 1997 rating action, the veteran's left hand disability evaluation was increased to 40 percent, effective from September 1994. In statements received from the veteran in December 1997, he expressed his disagreement with the effective date for his 40 percent rating, as well as with the adequacy of the rating itself. (He also discussed these claims at the hearing conducted by the undersigned.) The claims file before us, however, does not reflect that the veteran was provided a statement of the case regarding those issues, and, therefore, he has not been given the opportunity to perfect an appeal with respect to them. Assuming it is the veteran's desire to pursue appeals of those matters, the issuance of a statement of the case must be accomplished in order for the Board to acquire jurisdiction over them. See Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 398 (1995), wherein the Court held that, where a claim has been placed in appellate status by the filing of a notice of disagreement and it does not appear that the RO has acted upon it, the Board must remand the claim to the RO for preparation of a statement of the case as to that claim, lest the claimant be denied the opportunity to perfect an appeal as to the issue(s) in dispute. Similar circumstances exist with respect to a claim concerning the effective date for the award of special monthly compensation for the loss of use of the left hand. The veteran was granted this benefit in an August 1998 rating action, effective from September 1994. Although he appeared to have expressed his disagreement with the effective date of that award in a statement received in September 1998, the record does not reflect that a statement of the case was issued addressing the matter. As a result, the veteran has not had the opportunity to perfect an appeal with respect to that issue. As with the claims discussed in the preceding paragraph, it will be necessary for the Board to remand this claim to the RO for preparation of a statement of the case as to that claim, to provide the veteran with the opportunity to perfect an appeal regarding this issue. See Godfrey, supra. Under the circumstances described above, this case is remanded to the RO for the following: Unless the veteran communicates a desire to withdraw his claims concerning an increased rating for his left hand disability, the effective date of the assignment of a 40 percent rating for his left hand disability, and the effective date of the award of special monthly compensation, the RO should issue a statement of the case to the veteran, addressing these claims. The veteran should also be advised that, if he wishes the Board to address any of those issues, he must submit a timely substantive appeal, in response to the statement of the case, regarding any such claim. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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. ANDREW J. MULLEN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals