Citation Nr: 0001865 Decision Date: 01/24/00 Archive Date: 02/02/00 DOCKET NO. 94-04 639 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Phoenix, Arizona THE ISSUE Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robin M. Webb, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from September 1972 to April 1975. This appeal arises before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a rating action of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, Arizona, which denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for chronic schizophrenia. The Board notes that the veteran also perfected an appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for treatment of an active psychosis under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1702 (West 1991). During the pendency of this appeal, however, the RO granted the veteran's claim as to this issue, in an April 1993 rating decision. As such, this issue is no longer in appellate status, and the Board will not address it. REMAND Review of the record shows that in May 1999, in response to the RO's February 1999 Supplemental Statement of the Case, the veteran submitted correspondence to the RO, in which he stated that he would like to have a hearing before RO personnel, so that he could testify in his own behalf. The veteran indicated that he would be released from prison on June 22, 1999. The veteran signed the correspondence and included his current mailing address just below his signature. On July 12, 1999, the RO mailed a hearing notice to the veteran. It was returned due to an insufficient address. A comparison of the address provided by the veteran with the one used by the RO reveals that the RO did not include the veteran's post office box number. The RO did not correct this mistake and attempt to re-mail the hearing notification. Subsequently, it was noted in the veteran's claims file that he had failed to report for his scheduled hearing, on September 27, 1999. In light of this procedural error, the issue of whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder will not be decided pending a REMAND for the following actions: 1. The RO should first contact the local chapter of the veteran's service organization, Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and request current contact information as to the veteran. If the RO is provided with current contact information different from the veteran's prison address, it should contact the veteran and ask him if he still desires to have a hearing before RO personnel. If the veteran answers in the affirmative, such a hearing should be scheduled. The RO should document its efforts to comply with this directive and the DAV's response, or lack thereof. 2. If the RO receives no response from DAV or if DAV indicates that the veteran's prison address is the last known address of record, the RO should then send a letter to the veteran at that address and ask if he still desires to have a hearing before RO personnel. If the veteran responds in the affirmative, such a hearing should be scheduled. The RO should document its efforts to comply with this directive and the veteran's response, or lack thereof. If the RO uses the veteran's last known prison address to contact him regarding an RO hearing, the RO should include the veteran's post office box number (24406), as well as the other address information provided by the veteran in his May 25, 1999, correspondence to the RO. 3. Pursuant to accomplishment of the above, if the veteran's claim remains in a denied status, he and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case, which should include a full discussion of action taken on the veteran's claim and the reasons and bases for such action. The applicable response time should be allowed. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion as to any outcome warranted. 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 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. V. L. Jordan 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).