Citation Nr: 1304818 Decision Date: 02/11/13 Archive Date: 02/21/13 DOCKET NO. 09-22 878 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUES 1. Whether the Veteran's substantive appeal was timely filed with regard to a July 2006 rating decision denying a claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis, residuals of injury, right leg and hip. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Postek, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1983 to October 1985. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2008 decision and May 2009 rating decision by the RO in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Jurisdiction over the case was subsequently transferred to the RO in Atlanta, Georgia. 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 Although the Board regrets the additional delay, remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claims. Remand is required to obtain clarification of the Veteran's address and his representative and to provide the Veteran with a Board hearing. The Veteran was scheduled to testify before a Veterans Law Judge in a videoconference hearing at the RO on January 17, 2013 regarding the issue of timeliness of his substantive appeal to a July 2006 rating decision denying a claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disorder. The Veteran failed to report for the hearing without explanation. A review of the file shows that the RO sent a hearing notice to the Veteran on December 20, 2012. This hearing notice was sent to the Veteran at an address on "Hedgewood Circle" in Georgia. The most recent correspondence of record prior to issuance of the hearing notice is a May 2011 written submission from the Veteran, and a letter sent in August 2011 from the RO (appears only in the Virtual VA paperless claims processing system electronic file), which both list his address, that he previously provided to VA, as "Cameo Drive" in Georgia. Moreover, while the December 2012 hearing notice was not returned as undeliverable, a January 2013 letter sent from the Board to the Veteran at the Hedgewood Circle address was returned with the address marked as "vacant." There is no memorandum or other notation in the file that indicates that the Veteran informed VA of any change of address to Hedgewood Circle; it is unclear why the Veteran's address was changed for VA purposes. Accordingly, remand is required to afford the Veteran an additional opportunity to appear for a videoconference hearing on the issue of timeliness of the VA Form 9 discussed above. On remand, the RO will be asked to verify the Veteran's mailing address prior to scheduling him for a new videoconference hearing. In addition, the representative copied on the hearing notice is the Georgia Department of Veterans Service. A review of the file shows that the Veteran was represented by this organization at one time; however, he has been represented by Disabled American Veterans since June 2008, as shown by the most recent appointment of representative form (Form 21-22) of record. In addition, a review of the claims file indicates that the Veteran filed a substantive appeal (VA Form 9) to the May 2009 rating decision denying a claim of entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis, residuals of injury, right leg and hip. The RO received the Veteran's timely notice of disagreement in June 2009, and a related Statement of the Case was issued and sent to the Veteran in May 2011 with notice of a 60-day deadline to file a substantive appeal. Thereafter, the RO received the Veteran's timely substantive appeal that same month. As the Veteran perfected a timely appeal as to this issue, it is properly before the Board at this time. In his May 2011 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a hearing before the Board by videoconference from the RO. It does not appear that any action was taken to schedule the Veteran for this requested hearing. Inasmuch the RO schedules videoconference hearings, this case must be returned to the RO to arrange for such a hearing, along with the other issue on appeal, as discussed above. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should undertake appropriate development to verify the Veteran's current contact information and document such efforts in the claims file, as well as to update any necessary records to show the Veteran's current representative as Disabled American Veterans (DAV), unless the Veteran indicates otherwise. 2. Then, the RO should schedule the Veteran for a videoconference hearing before the Board on the above issues in accordance with the docket number of his appeal. 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). 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). _________________________________________________ K. MILLIKAN Acting 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).