Citation Nr: 1319330 Decision Date: 06/14/13 Archive Date: 06/21/13 DOCKET NO. 06-07 150A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles, California THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for spondylolisthesis, L5/S1 or residuals, low back injury. 3. Entitlement to service connection for deep thrombosis. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Donna D. Ebaugh, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1968 to November 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2005 rating decision of the RO in Los Angeles, California. The Board has reviewed the Veteran's Virtual VA file and notes that the electronic file contains a notice letter in accordance with Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), that is not found in the paper claims file. This letter must be considered in any future adjudication of the claims. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that claims for service connection for PTSD encompass claims for service connection for all psychiatric disabilities. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Here, the Veteran has been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders other than PTSD in addition to PTSD. Thus, the Board has redefined the Veteran's psychiatric appeal, as is listed on the title page of this decision. Additionally, the Board has recharacterized the issue regarding entitlement to service connection for spondylolisthesis, L5/S1 or residuals, low back injury, as service connection for spondylolisthesis was previously denied in July 1969 and the October 2005 rating decision as well as the March 2006 and April 2006 statements of the case adjudicated the issue as whether new and material evidence has been received. 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 Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.700(a) (2012), a hearing on appeal will be granted to an appellant who requests a hearing and is willing to appear in person. Also, a veteran is entitled to a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge, either in person, or via video conference in lieu of an in-person hearing, if he so chooses. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(b) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (2012). In this case, the Veteran submitted a statement, following his notice of disagreement, indicating that he desired the traditional appeals process and a formal hearing at a local VA RO. Then, in March 2006, prior to his receipt of the SOC and his Appeal Form 9, he submitted another statement indicating that he no longer desired a formal hearing but rather desired an informal conference with a Decision Review Officer. A March 2006 DRO informal conference report, indicates that he received the informal conference with the DRO. Despite the March 2006 statement that he no longer desired a formal hearing, in the Veteran's subsequent VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board, he requested a hearing at a local RO (commonly called a travel Board hearing) and hand wrote a notation "video conference." However, as yet, the Veteran has not been afforded a hearing before the Board. The Board acknowledges that in May 2007, the Veteran requested a DRO hearing regarding the claims on appeal; however, he never specifically withdrew his request for a BVA hearing. See 38 C.F.R. 20.702. Under these circumstances, the Veteran must be scheduled for a BVA videoconference hearing. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge via videoconference and notify him of the scheduled hearing at the latest address of record, in accordance with the procedures set forth at 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(a), and as the docket permits. 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). _________________________________________________ MARJORIE A. AUER 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).