Citation Nr: 1319447 Decision Date: 06/14/13 Archive Date: 06/21/13 DOCKET NO. 09-37 252A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: South Carolina Office of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. E. Wilkerson, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1967 to May 1969. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2008 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina. The Board remanded the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder in December 2011 and January 2013. The case has since returned to the Board for further appellate review. A review of the Veteran's Virtual VA electronic claims file reveals no additional records. 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 Unfortunately, the Board finds that further action is needed in this case, even though such action will further delay an appellate decision on this matter. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that a remand by the Board confers on the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. The Court also indicated that, if the Board proceeds with final disposition of an appeal, and the remand orders have not been complied with, the Board itself errs in failing to insure compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In this regard, substantial compliance with the Board's remand instructions, rather than strict compliance, is required. See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008) (citing Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999)). As noted in the Board's January 2013 remand, the Board had directed the RO/AMC to develop the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including all necessary notification and assistance, in the previous December 2011 remand. In the December 2011 remand, the RO/AMC was instructed to issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) if the benefit continued to be denied. It was specifically noted that the SSOC should include the amended version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) in the statement of laws and regulations. An August 2012 SSOC did not provide the amended version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), nor were there any other documents sent or received by the AMC following the December 2011 remand that reflected that the Veteran was otherwise provided the amended regulatory provision. Accordingly, the Board remanded the claim in January 2013 to ensure compliance with the December 2011 remand. The Board again directed the RO/AMC to provide the Veteran with all outstanding, necessary notice in regard to his claim for service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, to include providing the Veteran with the amended version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), complete any additional development deemed warranted, and readjudicate the Veteran's claim. Nevertheless, the Board's review of the record reveals that there has not been compliance with the January 2013 remand directives. While the Veteran was sent additional notice in February 2013, the notice letter did not provide the Veteran with the amended version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), nor was this information provided in any other communication sent to the Veteran following the January 2013 remand, including the April 2013 SSOC. Therefore, the Board finds that another remand is necessary. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO/AMC should provide the Veteran with the amended version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) either in an additional notice letter or a SSOC. 2. After completing the above action, the RO/AMC should conduct any other development as may be indicated by a response received as a consequence of the action taken in the preceding paragraph. 3. When the development requested has been completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO/AMC on the basis of additional evidence. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or 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). _________________________________________________ JESSICA J. WILLS 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).