Citation Nr: 0006618 Decision Date: 03/10/00 Archive Date: 03/17/00 DOCKET NO. 96-07 585 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Honolulu, Hawaii THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right knee injury. 3. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left knee injury. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran and his son ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Crawford, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from July 1961 to April 1965 and from February 1966 to April 1968. On appellate review in July 1997, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) granted the veteran's claim of entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes and remanded the issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD for additional development. Effectuating the Board's decision, in August 1997, the RO granted entitlement to pension, effective September 20, 1990, and denied entitlement to special monthly pension. Notice was mailed in September 1997. By written correspondence in September 1997, the veteran requested additional information concerning entitlement to special monthly pension. He, however, did not disagree with the August 1997 determination. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.201 (1999). In June 1998, the veteran stated that he wanted to pursue a claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disorder. In August 1999, the RO determined that new and material evidence to reopen the claim of service connection for residuals of a left knee injury had not been submitted. (The issue was initially denied in February 1991 and the veteran did not appeal.) In the August 1999 rating action, the RO also determined that service connection for residuals of a right knee injury was not warranted. In September 1999, the RO received notice of disagreement for those denials. On notice of disagreement, the veteran also requested entitlement to special monthly compensation, indicated that he desired a hearing before a member of the Board, and stated that he wanted to pursue claims of entitlement to service connection for vision loss, a chronic cough, blackouts, partial paralysis, burning pain, and chronic fatigue. In September 1999, the RO told the veteran that the issue of entitlement to special monthly compensation was previously denied in August 1997 and that notice of that decision was mailed in September 1997. The RO then told the veteran that since a timely appeal was not filed within the requisite one- year period, new and material evidence was required to reopen the claim. Regarding the claims for vision loss, a chronic cough, blackouts, partial paralysis, burning pain, and chronic fatigue, the veteran was also told that those matters had also been previously denied. (See November 1991 Confirmed Rating Action, March 1997 Rating Action, and May 1997 Hearing Transcript, wherein matters were withdrawn.) As such, new and material evidence was required to reopen them as well. Notice of disagreement for the bilateral knee disorder claim was acknowledged, and a pertinent supplemental statement of the case was issued to the veteran. In October 1999, the veteran perfected the appeal. Regarding the claim of entitlement to special monthly compensation and the claims of entitlement to service connection for vision loss, a chronic cough, blackouts, partial paralysis, burning pain, and chronic fatigue, on a direct and presumptive basis, the Board finds that those matters have been properly addressed by the RO; consequently, no additional development in that regard is warranted. However, the issues of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right knee injury and whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left knee injury have been properly development for appellate review. Accordingly, the issues on appeal are as stated on the title page. REMAND On notice of disagreement in September 1999 and substantive appeal in October 1999, the veteran indicated that he desired a hearing before a member of the Board at the RO. In light of the veteran's request for a travel board hearing, the Board finds that additional development is warranted. In order to ensure full compliance with the veteran's due process rights, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: The RO should schedule a travel board hearing for the veteran. The RO, by letter, should inform the veteran and his representative of the date, time, and location of the hearing. The RO should document all efforts made. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if appropriate. The veteran 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 or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) 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. M. Sabulsky Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), only a decision of the Board is appealable to the Court. 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).