Citation Nr: 0813564 Decision Date: 04/24/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 08-00 239 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis. 2. Entitlement to an increased disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Theresa M. Catino, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active military duty from March 1984 to February 1987 and from November 1990 to June 1991. During his second period of service, and specifically from January 1991 to May 1991, he served in Southwest Asia in support of Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2006 rating action of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia. Specifically, in that decision, the RO, denied service connection for sinusitis. The veteran's claim for service connection for sinusitis is being REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran if further action is required. REMAND In the substantive appeal which was received at the RO in December 2007, the veteran indicated his desire to present testimony at a hearing before a Member of the Board (e.g., Veterans Law Judge (VLJ)) in Washington, D.C. In a statement subsequently received at the Board in April 2008, the veteran asked that, instead of his initially requested hearing in Washington, D.C., he be accorded a hearing before the Board in Atlanta, Georgia. The veteran did not specify whether he desired to present testimony at an in-person hearing before the Board in Atlanta, Georgia or at a hearing before the Board via videoconferencing. A review of the claims folder indicates that the veteran has not withdrawn this hearing request. Because the Board may not proceed with an adjudication of the issue on appeal without affording the veteran an opportunity to present testimony at his requested hearing, a remand is required. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(b) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.700(a) (2007). By an August 2007 rating action, the RO in St. Petersburg, Florida denied the issue of entitlement to a disability rating greater than 30% for the service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In a statement received at the RO in Atlanta, Georgia in February 2008, the veteran expressed disagreement with this denial. Because a statement of the case (SOC) has not been provided to the veteran with respect to this issue, a remand is required. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 328 (1999). Accordingly, further appellate consideration will be deferred and this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should obtain from the veteran clarification as to whether he desires to present testimony at an in-person hearing before a VLJ at the RO or at a hearing before a VLJ via videoconferencing. Appropriate action should then be taken by the RO, in accordance with the veteran's request, to schedule him for his desired hearing before a VLJ. All correspondence pertaining to this matter should be associated with the claims folder. 2. The veteran should be furnished an SOC regarding the issue of entitlement to a disability rating greater than 30% for the service-connected PTSD. The veteran should be informed of the requirements necessary to perfect an appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 19.26 (2007). If, and only if, the veteran perfects his appeal by timely submitting a substantive appeal, this issue should be returned to the Board for further appellate review. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters that the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). These claims must be afforded expeditious treatment. 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 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). _________________________________________________ L. M. BARNARD Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), 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) (2007).