Citation Nr: 1320361	
Decision Date: 06/25/13    Archive Date: 07/05/13

DOCKET NO.  08-24 462	)	DATE
	)
	)

Received from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability.  

2.  Entitlement to service connection for headaches.  

3.  Entitlement to service connection for a sinus disability.  

4.  Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.  


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	The American Legion


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J.M. Seay, Associate Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active service from November 1954 to November 1957, with additional service in the Army National Guard from January 1951 to September 1951.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2006 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina.  The RO in Montgomery, RO currently has jurisdiction of the case.  

The record reveals that the Veteran also appealed the issues of entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the residuals of cold injury, left lower extremity, with peripheral neuropathy and an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent disability rating for the residuals of cold injury, right lower extremity, with peripheral neuropathy.  Thereafter, the RO granted a higher disability rating of 30 percent for the residuals of cold injury, left lower extremity, with peripheral neuropathy, and granted a higher disability rating of 30 percent for residuals of cold injury, right lower extremity, with peripheral neuropathy.  In written correspondence from the Veteran, he stated that he was satisfied with the percentage awarded for the residuals of cold injury for the left and right lower extremities.  He explained that he wished to continue the claims for service connection for a left ankle disability, headaches, sinus disability, and bilateral hearing loss.  Therefore, the issues of entitlement to a higher initial disability rating for residuals of cold injury, left lower extremity, with peripheral neuropathy and entitlement to a higher initial disability rating for residuals of cold injury, right lower extremity, were withdrawn and not certified for appellate review.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204.  Consequently, the issues are not before the Board.    

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

With respect to the issues on appeal, the Veteran perfected his appeal by a VA Form 9 received in August 2008.  The Veteran did not request a hearing.  However, the Veteran submitted another VA Form 9 received in April 2012.  In pertinent part, the Veteran disagreed with the continued denial of service connection for a left ankle disability, headaches, sinus disability, and bilateral hearing loss.  The Veteran requested a hearing before a member of the Board at a local VA office.  The Veteran was sent a letter in April 2012 notifying him that he was placed on the list of persons wanting to appear at the Montgomery, Alabama RO for a Travel Board hearing.  It was noted that unless the RO was told otherwise, his name would be on the list of persons wanting a Travel Board hearing.  

There is no indication that the Veteran's hearing was scheduled or that he withdrew his request for a hearing.  Consequently, this case must be remanded in order to schedule the requested hearing, as scheduling of Travel Board hearings is within the province of the RO.  38 C.F.R. § 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.)

Schedule the Veteran for a Travel Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the RO.  Notify the Veteran of the date, time and location of this hearing.  


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).



_________________________________________________
U.R. POWELL
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).