Citation Nr: 1306377	
Decision Date: 02/25/13    Archive Date: 03/01/13

DOCKET NO.  11-32 041	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke, Virginia


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for a lung disability.

4.  Entitlement to service connection for a sinus disability.


REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by:	Robert W. Gillikin, Attorney at Law


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

L. B. Yantz, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active duty service from May 1951 to February 1953 and from October 1953 to August 1955.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2010 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  A notice of disagreement was received in November 2010, a statement of the case was issued in October 2011, and a substantive appeal was received in November 2011.

The Board notes that, in an October 2012 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) claimed with depression and anxiety, and assigned a 30 percent rating effective September 17, 2009.  As that decision represents a full grant of benefits sought with regard to the Veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, for depression, for anxiety, and for treatment purposes only under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 17 (for PTSD, depression, and anxiety), these four issues are no longer a part of the current appeal.

The Board notes that it has reviewed both the Veteran's physical claims file and "Virtual VA" (VA's electronic data storage system) to ensure that the complete record is considered.  At present, there are no additional documents pertinent to this appeal in Virtual VA.

The appeal is REMANDED to the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office.  VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required.


REMAND

On his November 2011 VA Form 9, the Veteran indicated that he wished to have a Board hearing via video conference at his local RO.  He reiterated this request in a December 2011 submission.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(c)(1); 20.700(a) (2012).

A Board video conference hearing must now be scheduled.  The Veteran and his representative are to be notified by letter of the date, time, and place of that hearing.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

The RO should schedule the Veteran for a Board video conference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.  The Veteran and his representative are to be notified by letter of the date, time, and place of that hearing.  Once the hearing is conducted, or in the event the Veteran cancels the hearing or fails to report, the case should be returned to the Board.

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).




_________________________________________________
ALAN S. PEEVY
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).