Citation Nr: 1306197	
Decision Date: 02/22/13    Archive Date: 02/27/13

DOCKET NO.  12-25 955	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New Orleans, Louisiana


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy, including as due to Agent Orange exposure. 

2.  Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease. 


REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by:	C.H. Thorton Jr., Attorney 


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Matthew Blackwelder, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active service from February 1966 to December 1968.

This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from February 2010 and May 2012 rating decisions. 

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

On the issue of peripheral neuropathy, in his August 2012 substantive appeal, the Veteran indicated that he desired to testify at a Board hearing at the local RO.  In September 2012, he wrote that he no longer wanted a Board hearing.  In November 2012, he changed his mind as he submitted a new hearing request form, once again expressing his desire for a Board hearing and indicating that he preferred to be scheduled for either a Video Conference hearing or a Travel Board hearing, whichever could be scheduled earlier.  As such, a hearing should be scheduled.

On the issue of coronary artery disease, certain procedural steps must be followed to grant the Board jurisdiction to review the case.  First, once a rating decision issues, a veteran must file a timely notice of disagreement.  The RO then issues a statement of the case.  Finally, a veteran must file a timely substantive appeal.  38 C.F.R. §§ 19.26, 20.200, 20.201, 20.302(a).  

Here, the Veteran's claim for service connection for coronary artery disease was denied in a May 2012 rating decision.  In November 2012, he filed a notice of disagreement.  It does not appear that a statement of the case has been issued.  This should be done.  See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999); VAOPGCPREC 16-92 (O.G.C. Prec. 16-92).  

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions:

1.  Schedule the Veteran for either a Video Conference hearing or a Travel Board hearing, whichever can be scheduled earlier, at the RO in New Orleans, Louisiana.  He and his attorney should be notified of the date and time of the hearing, as appropriate.

2.  Issue a statement of the case on the claim of entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease in accordance with applicable law and regulations.  The Veteran and his attorney should be informed of the period of time within which a substantive appeal must be filed to perfect his appeal of this issue to the Board.  

This issue will be returned to the Board after issuance of the statement of the case only if perfected by the filing of a timely substantive appeal.  See Smallwood v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 93, 97 (1997).

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).



_________________________________________________
L. HOWELL
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).