Citation Nr: 1317466	
Decision Date: 05/29/13    Archive Date: 06/06/13

DOCKET NO.  12-29 320	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Gerald A. Kiehl, Agent


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Hallie E. Brokowsky, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran, who is the appellant in this case, had active duty service from June 1954 to October 1957.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina.  The Board has not only reviewed the Veteran's physical claims file, but also the file on Virtual VA, to ensure a total review of the available evidence. 

In a June 2012 statement, the Veteran raised the issues of entitlement to service connection for residuals of radiation exposure and to special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance or housebound status have been raised by the record, but those issues have not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over them, and they are referred to the AOJ for appropriate action.  

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

On an October 2012 VA Form 9, the Veteran requested a hearing before a Member of the Board (now called a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ)) via videoconference.  At that time, the Veteran indicated that he intended to appeal all of the issues listed on the statements of the case and supplemental statements of the case sent by the RO.  However, no such scheduled hearing was scheduled.   The Veteran should be afforded an opportunity to provide testimony on appeal via videoconference or, should he elect, in person at a Travel Board hearing.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.700, 20.702, 20.704 (2012).  

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

(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.)

The Veteran should be scheduled for a Board hearing as requested.  Notice of the scheduled hearing should be provided to the Veteran at the most recent address of record, and a copy of such notice shall be associated with the claims file.  Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order.

The purpose of this remand is to afford due process.  The Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of the case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time.  
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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).



_________________________________________________
K. J. ALIBRANDO
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).