Citation Nr: 1319606	
Decision Date: 06/18/13    Archive Date: 06/27/13

DOCKET NO.  12-03 718	)	DATE
	)
	)

Received from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Honolulu, Hawaii


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for anaplastic extramedullary plasmacytoma of the right tonsil and neck lymph nodes and dry mouth with distortion of sense of taste.  


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Katrina J. Eagle, Attorney at Law


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

R. Giannecchini, Counsel


REMAND

The Veteran had active military service from July 1967 to July 1970.  

The present matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Fort Harrison, Montana.  

In the above-noted August 2010 rating decision, the RO granted service connection and assigned a noncompensable disability rating for anaplastic extramedullary plasmacytoma in the right tonsil and neck lymph nodes and dry mouth with distortion of sense of taste.  The Veteran has appealed the noncompensable disability rating assigned.  In the decision, the RO also denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for right ear hearing loss.  The Veteran perfected an appeal to that issue.  In a statement from the Veteran's attorney, dated in October 2012, the claim was withdrawn from appellate consideration.  As such, the claim for service connection for right ear hearing loss is no longer in appellate status.  

A review of the evidence reflects a VA Form 9 (Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals), dated in March 2012, in which a request was made by the Veteran for a Board hearing at the RO.  

In March 2013, a request for a Board videoconference hearing was made by a service organization that had previously represented the Veteran, but was no longer representing him.  (The attorney currently representing the Veteran was appointed in October 2012).  The RO, acting on this request, scheduled the Veteran for a Board video conference hearing and in April 2013 certified the Veteran's appeal to the Board.  In a May 2013 statement, the Veteran's attorney indicated that the Veteran still desired a Board hearing at the RO and not a video conference hearing.  

Since the above May 2013 statement, additional information has been received by the Board with regard to the Veteran's hearing request.  This information consists of email exchanges between the RO's attorney liaison and the Veteran's attorney, dated in May 2013.  In particular, it is noted that the Veteran and his attorney had been scheduled for a June 2013 Board hearing at the RO but were unable to attend.  It was also noted that the Veteran's attorney was considering a hearing via video conferencing in lieu of the originally requested Board hearing at the RO.  

In view of the pending hearing request for a Board hearing, the case is remanded to ensure that the Veteran is afforded due process of law.  See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 2002).  

Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following action:

After obtaining clarification from the Veteran or his attorney concerning the type of Board hearing desired, the RO should schedule the Veteran for the requested hearing.  The Veteran and his representative should be notified in writing of the date, time, and location of the hearing.  

The Veteran 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 case must be afforded expeditious treatment.  The law requires that all claims remanded by the Board 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. 2013).



_______________________________
MARK F. HALSEY
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board 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).