Citation Nr: 1300765	
Decision Date: 01/09/13    Archive Date: 01/16/13

DOCKET NO.  09-29 362	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and a schizoid personality.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for fatigue.

4.  Entitlement to service connection for insomnia.

5.  Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disorder.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

S. Layton, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1973 to November 1973.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from January 2008 and July 2008 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Concerning the Veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, depression, and a schizoid personality, the Board notes the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' (the Court's) recent decision in Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), holding that when a claimant makes a claim, she is seeking service connection for symptoms regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled.  In its decision, the Court indicated that VA unduly limited its consideration of claims for service connection for specific mental disorders under circumstances in which other diagnosed psychiatric disabilities may be present.  Indeed, the Veteran's treatment records reflect multiple psychiatric disorders.  Accordingly, the Board has expanded the Veteran's original service connection claim pursuant to Clemons, and the issue is as stated on the title page of this decision.  

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

On her VA form 9 submitted in July 2009, the Veteran indicated that she wanted a personal hearing before a member of the Board by live videoconference.  The record contains no indication that she has withdrawn this request.

Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (2012), a hearing on appeal will be granted to an appellant 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).  In accordance with the Veteran's July 2009 communication, and since the RO schedules videoconference hearings before Members of the Board, a remand of these matters to the RO is warranted.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

The RO should schedule the Veteran for a Board videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge, in accordance with her request.  The RO should notify the Veteran of the date and time of the hearing, in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(b) (2012).

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).



_________________________________________________
DAVID L. WIGHT
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).