Citation Nr: 1320944	
Decision Date: 06/28/13    Archive Date: 07/05/13

DOCKET NO.  11-21 140A	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida


THE ISSUE

1.  Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the service-connected degenerative disk disease with history of lumbar strain. 

2.  Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy.

3.  Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy.

(The issue of whether the creation of the indebtedness due to overpayment of compensation for a dependent spouse was proper will be addressed in a separate decision.)


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

A.M. Ivory, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active military service from June 1979 to June 1999.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2011 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. 

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

After a careful review of the Veteran's claims file the Board finds that a remand is warranted. 

The July 2011 rating decision denied the Veteran an increased rating in excess of 20 percent for the degenerative disk disease with history of lumbar sprain and granted separate ratings of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity and right lower extremity, effective April 19, 2011.  However, in August 2011 the Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) on denial of an increased rating for his degenerative disk disease.  In a July 2011 letter, the Veteran communicated his disagreement with the 20 percent assigned for degenerative disk disease with history of lumbar strain.  Additionally, in a September 2011 letter, the Veteran's representative clarified that the Veteran also disagreed with the denial of an evaluation greater than 10 percent for both his right and left lower extremity radiculopathy.  However, a review of the paper file and Virtual VA does not reflect that the Veteran has been furnished a Statement of the Case (SOC) that addresses these issues.  Consequently, the Board must remand to the RO to furnish an SOC and to give the Veteran an opportunity to perfect an appeal of such issue by submitting a timely substantive appeal.  See Manlicon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

The RO shall furnish the Veteran a Statement of the Case that addresses the issues of entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 20 percent for the degenerative disk disease with history of lumbar sprain, entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy, and entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy.  The RO shall return this issue to the Board only if the Veteran files a timely substantive appeal.

The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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).



_________________________________________________
K. GIELOW
Acting 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).