Citation Nr: 1322250 Decision Date: 07/11/13 Archive Date: 07/18/13 DOCKET NO. 05-14 188 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for psychiatric disorders, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), personality disorder, and major depressive disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L.B. Cryan, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active military service from April 2002 to October 2002. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2003 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In a substantive appeal dated in March 2005 the Veteran requested a Travel Board hearing. A hearing was scheduled in June 2007 and the Veteran was notified in a letter dated in May 2007. The Veteran did not appear and did not submit a motion for a new hearing. Accordingly, the case will be processed as though the hearing request had been withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d) (2012). The case was remanded in August 2009, March 2011, and September 2012. Unfortunately, in order to afford the Veteran due process, the appeal is once again REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran's claim for service connection was most recently remanded by the Board in September 2012 for further development. The Board directed the RO to (1) request specific private treatment records previously identified by the Veteran (or authorization for VA to obtain them); and (2) schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to obtain an adequate medical opinion necessary to decide the case. The RO sent the Veteran a duty-to-assist letter in October 2012 to his last known address of record at that time. This address is listed as the address of record for correspondence purposes and other matters (address number 1). The Veteran did not respond. Similarly, the RO scheduled the Veteran for a VA examination in October 2012, and sent the notice of examination to address number 1. The Veteran did not report to the scheduled examination and did not provide any reason for his failure to report. On November 7, 2012, electronic information from the Gainesville medical facility indicated that the Veteran's address was now different (hereinafter address number 2). A January 2013 Report of Contact indicates that an RO employee tried to contact the Veteran by phone to ascertain his reason for the failure to report to his examination, but his phone number was out of service. In a January 2013 deferred rating decision, the Appeals Management Center indicated that his current address is now address number 2 and the notification letter concerning the examination was sent to address number 1. The Veteran was thereafter scheduled for another examination and informed of the examination date and time at address number 2. He did not report for the examination and did not provide any reason for his failure to report. A February 2013 Report of Contact indicates that the RO called the Veteran to inquire about his failure to report to the scheduled examination in February 2013, but there was no response. In light of the foregoing, the RO issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) in March 2013. The SSOC was sent to address number 1. However, according to the information in the claims folder, the Veteran's current address was address number 2. The Board also sent the Veteran a letter dated in April 2013. The letter was sent to address number 1 and was returned as undeliverable. The fact that the Veteran is failing to respond to records requests and failing to report to VA examinations based on correspondence sent to address number 2 does not necessarily mean that he is not receiving the notices sent to address number 2, particularly as there is no indication in the claims file that the correspondence sent to address number 2 is being returned as undeliverable. To ensure that the Veteran has been afforded all possible due process, the RO must send the SSOC to the Veteran's other known address of record, address number 2, and allow the Veteran an appropriate amount of time to respond, before certifying the case to the Board. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: Send the March 2013 SSOC to the most recent known address of record, address number 2 [address number 2 is set forth in a January 29, 2013 print-out of the C&P exam detail from the Gainesville VA Medical Center]. Afford the Veteran and his representative an opportunity to respond before returning the case to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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). _________________________________________________ S.S. TOTH 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).