Citation Nr: 1320262	
Decision Date: 06/24/13    Archive Date: 07/02/13

DOCKET NO.  10-00 542	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) 
in Nashville, Tennessee


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for status post medial meniscus repair of the right knee. 

2.  Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the right hip. 


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Donna D. Ebaugh, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1990 to September 1994, and from November 1996 to October 2003.

This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arose from a September 2009 rating decision in which the RO denied an increased rating for the right knee as well as service connection for the right hip.  In September 2009, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD).  A statement of the case (SOC) was issued in December 2009, and the Veteran filed a substantive appeal (via a VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals) in December 2009.  Subsequently, a supplemental statement of the case was issued in January 2011.  

The Veteran in the instant case has elected to participate in the Expedited Claims Adjudication (ECA) Initiative.  See ECA Agreement and Waiver of Rights, received July 16, 2009.  The ECA is a pilot program designed to expedite the processing of claims and appeals by obtaining claimants' waivers of certain statutory and regulatory response periods, and by utilizing the Board's statutory authority to pre-screen cases to determine the adequacy of the record for decisional purposes.  The case has been processed under regulations governing the ECA.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1500-20.1510 (2012).

For the reasons expressed below, the claim on appeal is being remanded to the RO. VA will notify the Veteran when further action, on his part, is required.


REMAND

As noted above, this case has been processed under the regulations governing the ECA.  Requests for hearings by ECA participants are governed by 38 C.F.R. § 20.1507(b).  Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1507(b), the Veteran is entitled to one hearing before the Board and the Board will determine the appropriate hearing, based primarily on the type and place of hearing which will allow for scheduling at the earliest possible date.
	
In this case, in the Veteran's December 2009 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a BVA hearing at a local RO before a member of the Board.  Then, in May 2013, the Veteran's representative submitted a statement indicating that the Veteran requested a Board video-conference hearing instead of a Travel Board hearing.  As the video-conference hearing is the most expeditious hearing available to the Veteran, the Board is hereby remanding the appeal in order for the Veteran to be scheduled for a BVA video-conference hearing.

Accordingly, this matter is hereby REMANDED for the following action:

Schedule the Veteran for a Board video-conference hearing at the earliest available opportunity.  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). 

The purpose of this REMAND is to afford due process; it is not the Board's intent to imply whether the benefits requested should be granted or denied.  The Veteran need take no action until otherwise notified, but he may furnish additional evidence and/or argument during the appropriate time frame.  See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999); Colon v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 104, 108 (1996); Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 109 (1995); Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 141 (1992).



_________________________________________________
JACQUELINE E. MONROE
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 the appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).