Citation Nr: 1306062 Decision Date: 02/21/13 Archive Date: 02/27/13 DOCKET NO. 97-32 166A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death. 2. Entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318 3. Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 as a result of death due to treatment afforded by VA from October to December 1996. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Dale, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1965 to November 1968. He died in December 1996; the appellant is his surviving spouse. This case was most recently before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in March 2009, when it was remanded to the VARO in Denver, Colorado, through the VA's Appeals Management Center (AMC) located in Washington, DC. The record reflects that the appellant was afforded a hearing before the Board, sitting at the RO, in November 2002, by a Veterans Law Judge that is no longer employed by the Board. The appellant was advised previously of this fact and declined in December 2005 to appear at any further hearing. The Board by its correspondence of February 2011 directed to the appellant at her most recent address of record again advised her of her right to request another Board hearing, but no response was received within the 30-day period allotted, and, thus, it is assumed by the Board that the appellant does not desire any additional hearing. The appellants' claims were previously remanded by the Board in June 2006, March 2009 and May 2011. The Board's prior remand directives and the subsequent actions by the VA Appeals Management Center (AMC) will be further discussed below. The claims have been returned to the Board. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the AMC, in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND In the May 2011 remand, the Board noted that, despite an April 2008 submission from the appellant which notified VA of her impending relocation, VA, including the RO and Board, failed to direct mail to the appellant at her new address in Las Animas, Colorado. Consequently, the appellant did not receive several mailings from VA, including an August 2010 supplement statement of the case (SSOC) from the AMC, because they were sent to the appellant's old address. The August 2010 SSOC was returned to VA as undeliverable by postal authorities as the appellant's forwarding order was apparently no longer in effect. As there was no indication that the August 2010 SSOC was subsequently mailed to the appellant at her current address of record, the case was remanded to ensure the appellant's receipt of due process of law pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (2012). A September 2012 deferred rating decision reflects that an AMC employee noted that the Board's May 2011 remand directive had not been substantially complied with at that time. An October 2012 computer printout reflects that, since the May 2011 Board remand, the appellant was now receiving her mail at a Post Office box in Hasty, Colorado. Later that month, the AMC sent the appellant and her representative a letter at her most recent address which noted the Board's May 2011 remand, and stated that a copy of the August 2010 SSOC was enclosed. However, review of the record reflects that the August 2010 SSOC was not listed among the enclosures attached to the October 2012 letter from the AMC. Moreover, there is no indication that the appellant received the August 2010 SSOC. VA has not received any communication from the appellant since October 2012, and the January 2013 submission from her representative does not indicate that she was in receipt of the August 2010 SSOC. Accordingly, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the directives of the May 2011 Remand in this case, and thus, an additional remand to comply with such directives is required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Specifically, the case must be returned to the AMC to ensure that the appellant receives written notice of the most recent adjudicatory action (the August 2010 SSOC) pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (2012). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: Issue to the appellant, at her current address of record, and her representative a copy of the supplemental statement of the case prepared originally by the AMC in August 2010 and mailed to the appellant at her former address. A copy of this letter, to include a copy of the August 2010 supplemental statement of the case, must also be associated with the claims file. The appellant and her representative should then be afforded a reasonable period in which to respond, prior to a return of the claims folder to the Board for final review of the appellate issue. 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). _________________________________________________ ROBERT C. SCHARNBERGER 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).