Citation Nr: 1323840	
Decision Date: 07/26/13    Archive Date: 08/06/13

DOCKET NO.  09-46 703A	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) 
in Los Angeles, California


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to a higher initial rating for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), rated as 30 percent disabling prior to January 5, 2010, and as 50 percent disabling from that date.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

C. L. Wasser, Counsel
INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from May 2004 to May 2008.

This case comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2009 decision by the RO in New York, New York that granted service connection and a 30 percent rating for PTSD, effective May 11, 2008.  The Veteran appealed for a higher rating.

In a May 2010 supplemental statement of the case, the RO granted a higher 50 percent rating for PTSD, effective from January 5, 2010.

A video conference hearing was held before an acting Veterans Law Judge of the Board in February 2013.

During the pendency of this appeal, the Veteran moved to California, and jurisdiction of the appeal was transferred to the RO in San Diego, California, and then to the RO in Los Angeles, California.  Recently, in July 2013, the Board received notification from the Veteran and his representative that he has since moved to Washington state, and wants jurisdiction of this appeal transferred to the RO in Seattle, Washington.  

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

A video conference hearing was held before an acting Veterans Law Judge of the Board in February 2013.  Unfortunately a written transcript of this hearing could not be created due to a malfunction of the recording equipment during the hearing.  By a letter dated in June 2013, the Veteran was advised of this fact, and was offered the opportunity to have another Board hearing before the Veterans Law Judge who will decide his case.  See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.707.

In July 2013, the Veteran responded to the Board's June 2013 letter and indicated that he wants another video conference hearing at the Seattle RO before another VLJ of the Board.  He is entitled to this additional hearing before this appeal is adjudicated.  See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.700(a) (2012).  He and his representative also informed the Board that he has moved to Washington state, and wants jurisdiction of this appeal transferred to the RO in Seattle, Washington.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

Schedule another Board video conference hearing at the Seattle RO at the next available opportunity.  Notify the Veteran and his representative  of the date, time, and location of this additional hearing, and put a copy of this letter in his claims file.  Once he has been afforded this requested hearing, or in the event that he withdraws his hearing request or fails to appear on the date scheduled, return the file to the Board for further appellate consideration of his claim.

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).


_________________________________________________
KELLI A. KORDICH 
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).