Citation Nr: 0814292 Decision Date: 04/30/08 Archive Date: 05/08/08 DOCKET NO. 04-32 813 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for cardiovascular disease. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Thomas A. Pluta, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from March 1974 to February 1978. This appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) arises from a February 2004 rating action that denied service connection for cardiovascular disease. By decision of October 2007, the Board remanded this case to the RO for further development of the evidence. For the reason expressed below, the matter on appeal is again being remanded to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, DC. The VA will notify the veteran when further action on his part is required. REMAND In October 2007, the Board remanded this case to the RO to afford the veteran a Board videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at the RO. By letter of February 2008, the RO notified the veteran of a Board videoconference hearing that had been scheduled for him at the RO for a date in March. However, the notice was returned to the RO by the Post Office as undeliverable, and the veteran failed to report for the hearing. In March 2008 written argument, the veteran's representative requested that the Board videoconference hearing be rescheduled, as the veteran may not have received the notice to report for the hearing at his new address of record in time to attend. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (2007), a hearing on appeal will be granted to a veteran who requests a hearing and is willing to appear in person. See also 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107 (West 2002) (pertaining specifically to hearings before the Board). Under the circumstances, the Board finds that the veteran should be given another opportunity to report for the requested Board videoconference hearing, and that a remand of this matter to the RO for this purpose is warranted. Accordingly, this matter is hereby REMANDED to the RO, via the AMC, for the following action: The RO should contact the veteran at his new address of record and schedule, at the earliest available opportunity, a Board videoconference hearing for him and any witnesses. The RO should notify the veteran and his representative of the date and time of the hearing in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(b) (2007). After the hearing, the claims folder should be returned to the Board in accordance with current appellate procedure. The purpose of this REMAND is to afford due process; it is not the Board's intent to imply whether the benefit requested should be granted or denied. The veteran needs take no action until otherwise notified, but he may furnish additional evidence and/or argument during the appropriate timeframe. See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999); Colon v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 104, 108 (1996); Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 109 (1995); Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 141 (1992). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or the U.S. 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. 2006). _________________________________________________ F. JUDGE FLOWERS 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 the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).