Citation Nr: 0001859 Decision Date: 01/24/00 Archive Date: 02/02/00 DOCKET NO. 95-14 043 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New York THE ISSUES 1. Whether the veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement from the March 1993 rating decision that denied entitlement to service connection for a suprasellar arachnoid cyst? 2. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a suprasellar arachnoid cyst. 3. Service connection for neurological/multisystem disability claimed as analogous to Gulf War Syndrome and also claimed as due to exposure to multiple chemical and/or biologic agents, to include the issue of whether there was a timely substantive appeal. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: James E. Morgan, Attorney WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL The appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jeffrey A. Pisaro, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from June 1973 to June 1978. This appeal arises from a March 1993 rating decision of the New York, New York Regional Office (RO) which denied entitlement to service connection for a suprasellar arachnoid cyst. Written notice of this decision was sent to the veteran in an April 1993 letter. Following the receipt of an inquiry regarding the veteran's claim, the RO sent the veteran a letter in August 1994 indicating that the one year time period had expired for him to file a timely notice of disagreement regarding the March 1993 rating denial of the claim of service connection for a suprasellar arachnoid cyst. A notice of disagreement was received in September 1994, a statement of the case was issued in November 1994, and a substantive appeal was received in April 1995 regarding the issues of whether the veteran had filed a timely appeal from the March 1993 rating decision denying service connection for a suprasellar arachnoid cyst and whether new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for a suprasellar cyst. The service connection issue was listed as a de novo claim in the statement of the case (SOC) even though the issue of whether new and material evidence had been received was addressed in the body of the claim. Thereafter, this issue has been characterized in the file as a de novo claim; however, as the veteran's claim has not been reopened, the Board has listed this claim on the title page as a finality issue. By rating decision in October 1996, a claim of entitlement to service connection for neurologic multi-system disability claimed as Gulf War Syndrome due to exposure to multiple chemical and biologic agents was denied. Although this issue was certified for appellate review, the question arises as to whether a timely substantive appeal was filed. REMAND In October 1999, the Board received a Travel Board request from the veteran. He indicated that any procedural delay in requesting a Travel Board hearing was due to the transitional period between being represented by the American Legion and the fact that he was now being represented by an attorney. In November 1999, the Board determined that good cause had been shown and the veteran's request for a Travel Board hearing was granted. Accordingly, this case must be REMANDED for the following: The veteran should be scheduled for a personal hearing before a traveling member of the Board of Veterans' Appeals on the next available date. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion, either legal or factual, as to any final determination warranted in this case. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified by the RO. The purpose of this REMAND is to afford the veteran due process of law. 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. Iris S. Sherman 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).