Citation Nr: 0813567 Decision Date: 04/24/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 06-34 227A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a stomach disorder, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 3. Whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a headache disability, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 4. Whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a joint disorder, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 5. Whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a muscle disorder, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 6. Whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for blood in the colon, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 7. Whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 8. Entitlement to service connection for a disorder manifested by leg cramps, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 9. Entitlement to service connection for a disorder manifested by shortness of breath, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 10. Entitlement to service connection for a disorder manifested by memory loss, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 11. Entitlement to service connection for a disorder manifested by fatigue, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 12. Entitlement to service connection for a disorder manifested by sleeping problems, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 13. Entitlement to service connection manifest by blurred vision, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. 14. Entitlement to service connection for depression, to include as due to undiagnosed illness. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Taylor, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from January 1981 to April 1981, and from November 1990 to June 1991. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the Columbia, South Carolina, VA Regional Office (RO). The appellant was afforded a travel Board hearing in March 2008. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Board notes that at the hearing, post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was associated with sleeping difficulties, Transcript at 11 (2008). The issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD is referred to the RO for its consideration. 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 In his March 2004 claim, the appellant stated that he had had treatment at the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Columbia and in Charleston. At the hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, the appellant testified that he was diagnosed with diabetes in 1993, Transcript at 15 (2008), and treatment at a VA facility was noted in 1993 or 1994. Id. at 21. The Board notes that VA treatment records, dated in May 1992, and dated in 1995, are of record. VA treatment records, dated in 1993 and/or 1994 have not been associated with the claims file. In addition, the Board notes that in the November 2006 VA Form 9, the appellant stated that he desired to have a Decision Review Officer (DRO) review his claims. It does not appear that there was a DRO review of the claims addressed in the May 2006 statement of the case. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should attempt to obtain any treatment records from the VAMC in Charleston and the Wm Jennings Bryan Dorn VAMC in Columbia, to include the Florence CBOC, dated in 1993 and/or 1994 that have not been associated with the claims file. Any records obtained should be associated with the claims file. 2. In light of the above, the claims should be readjudicated by a DRO. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the DRO should issue a supplemental statement of the case and afford the appellant a reasonable time in which to respond thereto. 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). These claims 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). _________________________________________________ MILO H. HAWLEY 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).