Citation Nr: 1306902	
Decision Date: 02/28/13    Archive Date: 03/01/13

DOCKET NO.  08-17 518	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO)
in Hartford, Connecticut


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD with anxiety and depression.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Robert V. Chisholm, Attorney


WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant, his spouse, and Dr. B


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

T. Mainelli, Counsel
INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1963 to June 1967.

This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arose from a January 2011 rating decision in which the RO granted service connection for PTSD with anxiety and depression, and assigned a 50 percent rating effective April 21, 2006.  In January 2011, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD).  A statement of the case (SOC) was issued in March 2011, and the Veteran filed a substantive appeal (via a VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals) in March 2011.

Because the appeal involves disagreement with the initial rating assigned following the grant of service connection for PTSD with anxiety and depression, the Board has characterized this matter in light of the distinction noted in Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999) (distinguishing initial rating claims from claims for increased ratings for already service-connected disability).

In May 2010, the Veteran, his spouse, and Dr. B., testified during a hearing before a Decision Review Officer (DRO) at the RO; a transcript of the hearing is of record.

In November 2011, the Board, inter alia, denied the Veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD with anxiety and depression.  The Veteran appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).  By order dated February 13, 2012, the Court remanded the PTSD rating claim to the Board pursuant to the terms of a Joint Motion for Remand.  The Board notes that additional issues addressed in the November 2011 decision were not appealed by the Veteran.

In March 2012, the Veteran submitted to the RO a properly completed VA Form 21-22a (Appointment of Individual as Claimant's Representative) electing Attorney Chisholm to represent him before VA in this case.  The terms of the VA Form 21-22a revoked a prior power of attorney on behalf of the Disabled American Veterans.

For the reason expressed below, the matter on appeal is being remanded to the RO.  VA will notify the Veteran when further action, on his part, is required.


REMAND

By letter dated in February 2013, the Veteran's attorney requested a Board video-conference hearing.  

Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (2012), a hearing on appeal will be granted to an appellant who requests a hearing and is willing to appear in person.  See also 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107 (West 2002) and 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.703, 20.704 (2012) (pertaining specifically to hearings before the Board).  As the RO schedules Board video-conference hearings, a remand of this matter for scheduling of the requested hearing is warranted.

Accordingly, this matter is hereby REMANDED for the following action:

The RO should schedule the Veteran for a Board video-conference hearing in accordance with the February 2013 request.  The RO should notify the Veteran and his attorney of the date and time of the hearing.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(b) (2012).  After the hearing, the claims file should be returned to the Board in accordance with current appellate procedures.

The purpose of this REMAND is to afford due process; it is not the Board's intent to imply whether the benefits requested should be granted or denied.  The Veteran need take no action until otherwise notified, but he may furnish additional evidence and/or argument during the appropriate time frame.  See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 





Vet. App. 369 (1999); Colon v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 104, 108 (1996); Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 109 (1995); Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 141 (1992).



_________________________________________________
JACQUELINE E. MONROE
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 the appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).