Citation Nr: 1322785	
Decision Date: 07/17/13    Archive Date: 07/24/13

DOCKET NO.  13-02 923	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

2.  Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, claimed as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus, Type II.  


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Jeanne Schlegel, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active duty service from October 1968 to August 1972.  

This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arose from a March 2012 rating decision in which the RO denied the Veteran's service connection claims for a psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD; and for erectile dysfunction.  In April 2012, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) with this rating decision.  A statement of the case (SOC) was issued in January 2013 and the Veteran filed a substantive appeal (via a VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals) in January 2013.   

For reason expressed below, the claim on appeal is being 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 January 2013 substantive appeal, the Veteran indicated that he did not want a Board hearing.  In subsequent correspondence from the Veteran received for the file in May 2013, he indicated that he had reconsidered and wished to be scheduled for a Board video conference hearing to be scheduled at the local RO.  

Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (2012), a hearing on appeal will be granted to an appellant who requests a hearing and is willing to appear in person.  See also 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107 (West 2002) (pertaining specifically to hearings before the Board).  As the RO schedules video-conference hearings, a remand of this matter for the requested hearing is warranted.   

Accordingly, this matter is hereby REMANDED for the following action:

The RO should schedule the Veteran for a Board video-conference hearing in accordance with his request.  The RO should notify the Veteran and his representative of the date and time of the hearing.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(b) (2012).  After the hearing, the claims file should be returned to the Board in accordance with current appellate procedures.  

The purpose of this REMAND is to afford due process; it is not the Board's intent to imply whether the benefits requested should be granted or denied.  The Veteran need take no action until otherwise notified, but he may furnish additional evidence and/or argument during the appropriate time frame.  See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999); Colon v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 104, 108 (1996); Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 109 (1995); Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 141 (1992).

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).



_________________________________________________
JACQUELINE E. MONROE
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).