Citation Nr: 1312017	
Decision Date: 04/11/13    Archive Date: 04/19/13

DOCKET NO.  10-47 556	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.  


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Missouri Veterans Commission


WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant, appellant's spouse and son


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

S. Lipstein


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from December 1950 to December 1952.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2010 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri.  

The Veteran presented testimony at a Travel Board hearing chaired by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2012.  A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims folder.

Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012).  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002).

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC.  VA will notify the appellant if further action is required.


REMAND

In May 2012, the Veteran, through his representative, submitted private treatment records which reflect that the Veteran was treated in 1993 for a bilateral otitis and earache.  In a letter dated in March 2013, the Veteran expressly stated that he did not waive his right to have the RO review the evidence in the first instance.  A remand is therefore required.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (2012).

Lastly, relevant ongoing medical records should also be obtained.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(c) (West 2002); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) 

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions:

(Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012).  Expedited handling is requested.)

1.  The RO should notify the Veteran that he may submit lay statements from individuals who have first-hand knowledge, and/or were contemporaneously informed his in-service and post-service hearing loss and tinnitus.  The Veteran should be provided an appropriate amount of time to submit this lay evidence. 

2.  Obtain relevant VA treatment records from the Kansas City VA Medical Center, dated from December 2011 to the present.  

3.  After the development requested above as well as any additional development deemed necessary has been completed, the record should again be reviewed.  If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, then the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and be given the opportunity to respond thereto.  The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order.

The appellant 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).



_________________________________________________
MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE
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).