Citation Nr: 1303395	
Decision Date: 01/31/13    Archive Date: 02/05/13

DOCKET NO.  10-34 578	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disability.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	The American Legion


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant



ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Hager, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1956 to February 1968, September 27, 1975, to September 26, 1976, and January 23, 1989, to May 21, 1989.  The Veteran's service records also show a period of service in the Air Force National Guard from June 1986 to November 1990.

These matters initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio.  Jurisdiction over this case was subsequently transferred to the VARO in Columbia, South Carolina, and that office forwarded the appeal to the Board.

In December 2010, the Veteran testified during a hearing at the RO before a Veterans Law Judge of the Board; a transcript of that hearing is of record.

Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012).  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002).

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC.  VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required.


REMAND

In December 2012, the Veteran was notified that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted his December 2010 hearing is no employed by the Board.  He was notified that the law requires the Veterans Law Judge who conducts a hearing on an appeal must participate in any decision made on that appeal.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(c) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.707 (2012).  Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.717 (2012), the Veteran was asked to inform VA whether he wished to testify at another hearing.

The Veteran returned VA's letter later in  December 2012, choosing to appear at a Travel Board hearing before another Veterans Law Judge at his local RO.  A remand is therefore necessary in order to comply with the Veteran's hearing request.

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) (2012).  Expedited handling is requested.)

Schedule the Veteran for a Travel Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at his local Regional Office.  Appropriate notification should be given to the Veteran and his representative, and such notification should be documented and associated with the Veteran's claims folder.

The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded.  Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).

These claims 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. 2012).



_________________________________________________
DEREK R. BROWN
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 the appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).