Citation Nr: 0812590 Decision Date: 04/16/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 06-28 333A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type I, due to herbicide exposure. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for scleraderma of the back (claimed as dry skin), due to herbicide exposure. 3. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 4. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease. 5. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension. 6. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea. 7. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for blindness due to diabetic retinopathy. 8. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder to include pes planus, ligamentous strain, ankle sprain, and diabetic neuropathy. 9. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for arthritis in all joints. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Eric S. Leboff, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from May 1966 until April 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) from a May 2004 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Board has reviewed the record and finds that additional development is required in the present case. Specifically, in correspondence submitted in August 2007, the veteran requested a videoconference hearing before a Veteran's Law Judge. Such hearing has not been provided. Moreover, the record does not indicate that the veteran has withdrawn his hearing request. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: The veteran should be scheduled for a videoconference hearing before a Veteran's Law Judge at the St. Petersburg, Florida, RO. The veteran should be notified of the date, time and place of such a hearing by letter mailed to his current address of record. All correspondence pertaining to this matter should be associated with the claims folder. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters 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 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 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). _________________________________________________ C. TRUEBA Acting 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).