Citation Nr: 1320540	
Decision Date: 06/26/13    Archive Date: 07/05/13

DOCKET NO.  10-00 290	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II.  


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Kristi L. Gunn, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from December 1967 to July 1969.  

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2008 rating decision of the Louisville, Kentucky, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 

The Board has reviewed the contents of the Veteran's Virtual VA file and found no medical or other evidence pertinent to this appeal that is not in his claims file. 

The issues of entitlement to service connection for ischemic colitis and hypokalemia, as well as entitlement to an increased rating for the service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II, have been raised by the record, but have not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  See the December 2010 and December 2011 personal statements.  Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over them, and they are referred to the AOJ for appropriate action.  

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

In his VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, dated December 2009, the Veteran indicated that he did not want a Board hearing.  However, in a statement submitted along with the VA Form 9, the Veteran requested a Decision Review Officer (DRO) hearing at the Louisville, Kentucky RO "to show [his] side of [the] claim."  The Veteran again requested a personal hearing before a DRO at his local RO to further his claim in a more recent statement, dated December 2010.  

Upon review of the claims file, no such hearing has been scheduled, and the Veteran has not withdrawn his request.  As the RO schedules DRO hearings, a remand of this matter is warranted to schedule the desired hearing in accordance with the Veteran's request. 


Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Schedule a DRO hearing at the Louisville, Kentucky RO.  The RO should notify the Veteran and his representative of the date and time of the hearing.  If the Veteran no longer desires a DRO hearing, a signed writing to that effect (preferably, one signed by the Veteran), should be associated with the claims file.  

2.  Undertake any indicated development and then readjudicate the issue on appeal.  If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and afford the Veteran and his representative the requisite opportunity to respond before returning the case to the Board for further appellate action.  

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).



_________________________________________________
P.M. DILORENZO
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).