Citation Nr: 1303891 Decision Date: 02/04/13 Archive Date: 02/08/13 DOCKET NO. 07-35 951 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for an anxiety disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. C. Graham, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from October 1966 to October 1968. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2006 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, that granted service connection for an anxiety disorder and assigned a 30 percent disability evaluation. Jurisdiction of this matter is now with the RO in St. Petersburg, Florida. In January 2009, the Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at the RO. In May 2009, the Board recharacterized the disability as an anxiety disorder to include PTSD and remanded the claim for further development. In a December 2009 rating decision, the initial disability rating was increased, to 50 percent, effective from October 26, 2005, the date of service connection. In December 2011, the Board informed the Veteran that the VLJ who conducted his hearing was no longer employed by the Board, and indicated that he was entitled to another hearing. The Veteran did not respond, and the Board proceeded to remand the claim for further development and for due process reasons in May 2012. At that time, the Board also found that a claim of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disability was not on appeal, as the Veteran did not perfect an appeal of the TDIU issue (the increased rating and TDIU issues had been adjudicated separately by the RO). Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). 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 VA law provides that the Veterans Law Judge who conducts a hearing regarding an issue shall participate in making the final determination with respect to that issue. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(c) (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.707 (2012). In correspondence received by the Board on January 2, 2013, the Veteran stated that he desired to appear at another Travel Board hearing (a hearing before a VLJ at his local RO). A remand is warranted since the RO schedules this type of hearing. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a Travel Board hearing at the earliest available opportunity. Notification of the date and time of the hearing shall be sent to the Veteran at his last address of record as well as to his representative. 2. After the hearing, or after the Veteran's failure to appear for the hearing, process this matter in accordance with established procedure. 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL A. HERMAN 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) (2012).