Citation Nr: 1237791	
Decision Date: 11/05/12    Archive Date: 11/09/12

DOCKET NO.  10-25 262	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) 
in Oakland, California


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 0 percent for face and neck scars.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

A.E.H. Gibson, Associate Counsel 






INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marines from May 1966 to September 1969.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2009 rating decision that continued a 0 percent evaluation for the Veteran's face and neck scars.

The Board has reviewed the Veteran's physical claims file as well as his file on the "Virtual VA" system to ensure a total review of the evidence.

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

After careful consideration, and for the reasons set forth below, the Board finds that additional development of the record is necessary before the issue on appeal may be decided on its merits.  

The Veteran is seeking an increased disability rating for his service-connected scars to the face and neck.  Following the issuance of the rating decision in December 2009, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement, after which the RO issued a statement of the case (SOC) in June 2010.  That month, the Veteran filed VA Form 9, which perfected his appeal to the Board.  At that time, he requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) to occur via video conferencing.  See VA Form 9 dated June 8, 2010.  A hearing was scheduled for May 15, 2012, but it was postponed, and has not been rescheduled.  Neither the physical nor virtual claims file contains an indication that the Veteran wishes to withdraw his request for a hearing.  

The Veteran has a right to a hearing before the issuance of a Board decision.  Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 292 (1993) (citing to 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a) and (c), 19.9, 19.25, 20.704 (2011).  Therefore, he must be afforded an opportunity to appear at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge prior to the Board's adjudication of his claim.  Since such hearings are scheduled by the RO, the Board must remand the case to the RO for that purpose, to ensure full compliance with due process requirements.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.704, 20.1304 (2011).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action:

The RO should make arrangements to schedule the Veteran for a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.  Timely notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing should be afforded to the Veteran and his representative by letter mailed to the current address of record. 

The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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).



_________________________________________________
K. PARAKKAL
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).