Citation Nr: 1321246	
Decision Date: 07/02/13    Archive Date: 07/12/13

DOCKET NO.  06-24 448	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder, diagnosed as degenerative disc disease (DDD) and lumbar degenerative joint disease (DJD).


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Penelope E. Gronbeck, Esquire


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Joseph R. Keselyak, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1969 to March 1971.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an April 2005 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newark, New Jersey.  

In September 2006 the Veteran testified before the Board regarding the issue on appeal at a Travel Board hearing.  A transcript of that testimony has been associated with the record.  The Veterans Law Judge who conducted the hearing has since retired from the Board.  The Veteran was offered an opportunity to testify at another hearing with a Veterans Law Judge who would decide his appeal, but declined.  

In a February 2012 decision, the Board denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder, diagnosed as DDD and lumbar DJD.  The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).  In August 2012, counsel for the Veteran and the Secretary of VA filed a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR).  An Order of the Court dated September 4, 2012, granted the JMR remanded the case to the Board

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

As noted above, the Veteran was afforded a Travel Board hearing regarding the issue on appeal in September 2006.  At the time of the hearing, the Veteran was represented by an attorney.  Following the hearing, that attorney apparently ceased to represent the Veteran.  See September 2010 Report of Contact.  At the time the Board issued its February 2012 decision, the Veteran was thus unrepresented.  However, since that hearing, the Veteran has retained a new attorney to represent him and on the advice of counsel has requested he be afforded another Travel Board hearing.  See June 7, 2013, letter from Penelope E. Gronbeck, Esquire.

Normally, the Board need only afford a Veteran a single hearing on an issue on appeal.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (2012).  However, given that the Veteran has retained new counsel and the Veterans Law Judge that conducted the September 2006 hearing has retired, the case should be remanded to afford the Veteran another Travel Board hearing, as requested.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.717 (2012).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

Schedule the Veteran for a Travel Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the RO, in accordance with applicable procedures; notice should be sent to the Veteran as required.

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).



_________________________________________________
MICHAEL A. PAPPAS
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).