Citation Nr: 1325885	
Decision Date: 08/15/13    Archive Date: 08/26/13

DOCKET NO.  11-25 749	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Paul, Minnesota


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to a special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance of another person or on account of being housebound.


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Shamil Patel, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1954 to April 1955 and from August 1956 to February 1960.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota, which denied entitlement to a special monthly pension.

A portion of the Veteran's records are contained in the Virtual VA system.  Instead of paper, a highly secured electronic repository is used to store and review every document involved in the claims process.  The use of this system allows VA to leverage information technology in order to more quickly and accurately decide a Veteran's claim for benefits.  Because the current appeal was processed as part of the Virtual VA system, any future consideration of this appellant's case should take into consideration the existence of this electronic record.

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

Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (2012), a Board hearing for a claim on appeal will be granted to an appellant who requests one and is willing to appear in person.  See also 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107 (West 2002) (pertaining specifically to hearings before the Board).

In his September 2011 VA Form 9 substantive appeal, the Veteran indicated he wished to testify at a Board hearing in Washington, D.C.  The record reflects that a hearing was scheduled for September 2012, and that the Veteran did not appear.

However, in correspondence dated July 2012, the Veteran stated that he would be unable to attend a hearing in Washington, D.C., due to financial and health constraints.  He requested a hearing in Boise, Idaho, where he lives.  This request for a local hearing before a member of the Board has not been addressed.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

At the earliest available opportunity, schedule the appellant for an in-person or videoconference Board hearing at the RO in Boise, Idaho.  Notify him of the date, time, and location of this hearing, and put a copy of this letter in the claims file.  Once he has been afforded this requested hearing, or in the event that he withdraws his hearing request or fails to appear for the proceeding, the file 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).



_________________________________________________
Vito A. Clementi
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).