Citation Nr: 1406830	
Decision Date: 02/18/14    Archive Date: 03/04/14

DOCKET NO.  11-16 843	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Lincoln, Nebraska


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for generalized anxiety disorder.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for prostatitis.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, claimed as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II, or ischemic heart disease.


REPRESENTATION

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


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

T. Blake, Associate Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1967 to August 1969.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board or BVA) on appeal from October 2010, June 2011, and April 2013 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Lincoln, Nebraska.

In July 2011, the Veteran testified at a local hearing before a Decision Review Officer (DRO).  A copy of the transcript is of record.

A December 2013 VA Form 21-4138 by the Veteran's representative raises a claim for service connection for a bilateral knee disorder.  This issue has not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ); therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over it and it is referred to the AOJ for appropriate action.  

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO, via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC.  


REMAND

In a June 2011 substantive appeal, via a VA Form 9, for the issue of service connection for generalized anxiety disorder, the Veteran requested a BVA video conference hearing.  In a July 2012 substantive appeal, via a VA Form 9, for the issue of service connection for prostatitis, he indicated he did not want a BVA hearing.  In an October 2013 substantive appeal, via a VA Form 9, for the issue of service connection for hypertension, he requested a BVA hearing at the local RO (Travel Board hearing) in Lincoln, Nebraska.  The Board finds there is a valid request for a BVA hearing, and it was timely received prior to the January 2014 certification of the case to the Board.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.700(a), 20.703 (2013).

Additionally, there has been no subsequent expression by the Veteran or his representative indicating that the Veteran did not desire a BVA hearing.  For these reasons, the Board finds that due process requires this case to be remanded to afford the Veteran a BVA hearing regarding the claims on appeal.  See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (2013).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

Ask the Veteran and/or his representative to clarify whether he wants a BVA hearing conducted by video conference or in person at the RO in Lincoln, Nebraska.  Then, schedule the requested hearing in the order that the request was received.  The Veteran and his representative should be notified of the date and time of the hearing and a copy of such notice should be placed in the record.

The Veteran and his representative have the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded.  Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).  These claims must be afforded expeditious treatment.  The law requires that all claims 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. 2013).


_________________________________________________
MICHELLE L. KANE
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) (2013).