Citation Nr: 1322467	
Decision Date: 07/15/13    Archive Date: 07/24/13

DOCKET NO.  11-16 209	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Reno, Nevada


THE ISSUES

1.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

2.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss.

3.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type 2.  


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Carol J. Ponton, Attorney


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. Carsten, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1961 to June 1964.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado.  The case was certified to the Board by the RO in Reno, Nevada.

The Virtual VA eFolder has been reviewed.  

The appeal is REMANDED to the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office.  VA will notify the appellant if further action is required.


REMAND

In his June 2011 VA Form 9, the Veteran requested a videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.  In April 2012, the Veteran was notified that the requested hearing had been scheduled.  Thereafter, his attorney submitted a statement indicating that he was withdrawing his hearing request and his case was subsequently certified to the Board.

In June 2013, the Board received correspondence dated in May 2013 indicating that the Veteran wanted a videoconference hearing.  The Board acknowledges that this statement was submitted on letterhead from the Veteran's former representative (Disabled American Veterans).  However, it states that the Veteran contacted their office and requested that he be afforded a hearing.  

On review, and in an effort to ensure due process, a remand is necessary so that the requested videoconference hearing may be scheduled.  

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

Schedule the Veteran for a videoconference hearing at the appropriate RO.  Provide him and his representative reasonable advance notice of the date, time, and location of the 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).



_________________________________________________
H. N. SCHWARTZ
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).