Citation Nr: 0811617 Decision Date: 04/08/08 Archive Date: 04/23/08 DOCKET NO. 02-20 395 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic neuropathy of the left lateral chest wall. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Ishizawar, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant is a veteran who served on active duty from April 1959 to June 1963 and from May 1965 to March 1967, and had subsequent service with the Army National Guard. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2002 rating decision of the Waco, Texas Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2003, a hearing was held before a Decision Review Officer (DRO) at the RO. A transcript of this hearing is of record. The case was previously before the Board in August 2004 when it was remanded for further development/notice. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if any action on his part is required. REMAND In the August 2004 remand, the Board asked the RO to advise the veteran that he could submit supporting evidence concerning his allegation that in June 1984 he slammed into a commander's hatch opening of a tank, causing his current left lateral chest wall neuropathy. Specifically, the RO was asked to advise that such supporting evidence could come from alternative sources, such as lay statements, buddy statements, letters, and diaries, etc., and that such detailed information was vitally necessary for VA to attempt to obtain supportive evidence regarding his claim. A close review of the record found that January 2005, December 2005, May 2006, August 2006, and April 2007 Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) notice letters did not provide the veteran with this information. Nor is there any other communication to the veteran from the RO providing the specific notice requested. A remand by the Board confers on the appellant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). While the Board regrets continued delay in this case, it has no recourse but to once again remand the case to the RO for the notice previously sought. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following: 1. The RO must (as the Board's previous remand instructed) advise the veteran that he may submit supporting evidence concerning the trauma (being slammed into a tank hatch) he claims caused his left lateral chest wall neuropathy. He should be advised that such evidence may come from alternative sources, e.g., lay statements, buddy statements, letters, and diaries, etc., and that such detailed information is necessary for VA to attempt to obtain supportive evidence regarding his claim. The veteran should have ample opportunity to respond. 2. If any further development is deemed necessary, the RO should arrange for such development. The RO should then re- adjudicate the claim. If it remains denied, the RO should issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and give the appellant and his representative the opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, for further review. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. _________________________________________________ George R. Senyk Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), 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) (2007).