Citation Nr: 1323851	
Decision Date: 07/26/13    Archive Date: 08/06/13

DOCKET NO.  10-01 103	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Hartford, Connecticut


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to automobile and adaptive equipment or for adaptive equipment only.

2.  Entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 2, 2012 for the grant of entitlement to automobile and adaptive equipment or for adaptive equipment only.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant



ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Sarah Richmond, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active military service from January 1970 to February 1972.

By a July 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newington/ Hartford, Connecticut, the RO denied entitlement to automobile and adaptive equipment or adaptive equipment only.  This decision was confirmed and continued in an October 2009 rating decision.  The Veteran testified at a hearing at the RO in August 2010.  In April 2013, the RO granted the benefits at issue and assigned an effective date of March 2, 2012.

The issue of entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 2, 2012 for the grant of entitlement to automobile and adaptive equipment or adaptive equipment only is addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision below and is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC.


FINDING OF FACT

In an April 2013 rating decision, the RO granted the issue on appeal of entitlement to automobile and adaptive equipment; and there remains no case or controversy with respect to this issue.  


CONCLUSION OF LAW

The Board does not have jurisdiction over the issue of entitlement to automobile and adaptive equipment, as the claim has been granted in full by the RO.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 7104, 7105 (d)(5) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (2013).


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed.  See also 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(d).  As the RO has granted the benefit sought on appeal of entitlement to automobile and adaptive equipment, there remains no allegations of error of fact or law for appellate consideration on this issue, and the Board does not have further jurisdiction.  While the Veteran's representative has filed a notice of disagreement with the effective date assigned, this is a separate issue that must be appealed to the Board separately.


ORDER

Entitlement to automobile and adaptive equipment or for adaptive equipment only is dismissed.


REMAND

In April 2013, the RO granted entitlement to automobile and adaptive equipment and assigned an effective date of March 2, 2012.  The Veteran's representative submitted argument in June 2013 contending that the effective date for the grant of this benefit should be on May 6, 2009, the date the Veteran originally filed his claim.  The RO has not issued a statement of the case or supplemental statement of the case which addresses this issue and the Board finds that a remand for this action is necessary. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.26, 19.29, 19.30; Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999).




Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

The RO should issue a statement of the case to the Veteran and his representative addressing the effective date assigned for the grant of entitlement to automobile and adaptive equipment.  The statement of the case should include all relevant law and regulations pertaining to the claim.  The Veteran must be advised of the time limit in which he may file a substantive appeal.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b).  Thereafter, if an appeal has been perfected, this issue should be returned to the Board.

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).


____________________________________________
K. PARAKKAL
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Department of Veterans Affairs