Citation Nr: 0813797 Decision Date: 04/25/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 03-13 085 ) DATE ) ) Received from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center in Wichita, Kansas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. 3. Entitlement to service connection for shin splints. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran and his spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Cryan, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from May 1972 to May 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2003 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri, wherein service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus was denied. After the decision was entered, the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of the RO in Wichita, Kansas. This matter also comes before the Board on appeal from a May 2006 rating decision by the VARO in Wichita, Kansas, wherein service connection for shin splints was denied. 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 issues of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus were previously remanded by the Board in decisions dated in November 2005 and September 2006. In March 2004 the veteran presented testimony at a Travel Board hearing before an Acting Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), a transcript of which is of record. Thereafter, the veteran submitted a claim of entitlement to service connection for shin splints. The veteran's claim for shin splints was denied and the veteran also appealed that issue. With regard to the issue of shin splints, the veteran indicated that he did not desire a hearing. However, the appeal was merged with the hearing loss and tinnitus issues in February 2007. Following the September 2006 Board remand, the veteran was informed in a February 2008 letter from the Board that the Acting VLJ who conducted his hearing was no longer employed by the Board and was offered an opportunity to testify at another hearing. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.707, 20.717. In March 2008 the veteran responded that he would like to appear at a hearing before a VLJ via video conference at the local regional office. As such, this case needs to be returned to the RO so that a Board hearing may be scheduled. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the veteran for a hearing in accordance with applicable procedures. The veteran and his representative should be provided with notice as to the time and place to report for said hearing. 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). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL LANE 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).