Citation Nr: 1215652	
Decision Date: 05/01/12    Archive Date: 05/10/12

DOCKET NO.  00-20 822	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disability.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	The American Legion


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Michael T. Osborne, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active service from January 1956 to January 1959.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2000 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee, which denied, in pertinent part, the Veteran's claim of service connection for a left eye disability.  An RO hearing was held on this claim in February 2001.  Although the Veteran initially requested a Travel Board hearing when he perfected a timely appeal on this claim in September 2000, he failed to report for this hearing when it was scheduled in July 2004.

In August 2004, the Board remanded this matter to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, DC, for additional development.  A review of the claims file shows that there has been substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); see also Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141 (1999) (holding that another remand is not required under Stegall where the Board's remand instructions were substantially complied with), aff'd, Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (2002).

In June 2009, the Board denied the Veteran's claim.  Both the Veteran, through his attorney, and VA's Office of General Counsel filed a Joint Motion for Partial Remand ("Joint Motion") with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("Court").  In March 2010, the Court granted the Joint Motion and vacated and remanded the Board's June 2009 decision to the extent that it denied the Veteran's claim of service connection for a left eye disability.

In May 2011, the Board again remanded the Veteran's claim to the RO/AMC for additional development.

Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2011).  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002).

Unfortunately, as is explained below, this appeal is REMANDED again to the RO/AMC.  VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required on his part.



REMAND

Inasmuch as the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay of the adjudication of this matter, a remand is necessary before the Veteran's claim of service connection for a left eye disability can be adjudicated. 

As noted in the Introduction, the Veteran failed to report for his original Board hearing when it was scheduled in July 2004.  Neither the Veteran nor his service representative has presented good cause for the Veteran's failure to report for this hearing.  In statements submitted directly to the Board in May and September 2011, the Veteran asked for another Travel Board hearing.  Neither the Veteran nor his service representative has revoked his pending Board hearing request.  The Board finds that, given the length of time which has elapsed since the Veteran's original Board hearing scheduled in July 2004, there may be additional concerns that either the Veteran or his service representative wants to present at a new Board hearing which were not at issue at the time of his originally scheduled Board hearing.  Accordingly, the Board finds that, on remand, the Veteran should be scheduled for a Travel Board hearing at the RO.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107 (West 2002 & Supp. 2011); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.75, 19.76, 20.703, 20.704 (2011).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

(Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2011).  Expedited handling is requested.)

Schedule the Veteran for a Travel Board hearing at the RO.  A copy of the notice letter sent to the Veteran and his service representative concerning this hearing should be included in the claims file.

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. 2011).



_________________________________________________
MARJORIE A. AUER
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) (2011).