Citation Nr: 1632082	
Decision Date: 08/12/16    Archive Date: 08/23/16

DOCKET NO.  09-44 739	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas


THE ISSUES

1.  Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

2.  Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease, to include as due to herbicide exposure. 

3.  Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for lumbosacral sprain.

4.  Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU).


REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by:	Michael D.J. Eisenberg, Attorney



ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

S. Mishalanie, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1967 to July 1969 in the United States Navy.  

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from April 2009 and September 2013 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas.  

Regarding the characterization of the issues on appeal, the Board points out that it must address the question of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for PTSD because this matter goes to the Board's jurisdiction to reach the underlying claim and adjudicate the claim on a de novo basis.  See Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  In other words, the Board is required to first consider whether new and material evidence is presented before the merits of the claims can be considered.  See Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  Accordingly, the Board has characterized this issue as set forth on the title page.

This appeal was processed using the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) and the Virtual VA paperless claims processing systems.  Any future consideration of this Veteran's case must take into account the existence of these electronic records.

The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  VA will notify the Veteran if further action on his part is required.



REMAND

In this case, the Veteran originally requested a hearing before the Board in Washington, D.C. (a central office hearing).  See July 2012 VA Form 9; June 2015 VA Form 9.  Prior to the hearing, the Veteran's representative indicated that due to medical restrictions, the Veteran wanted to change his request to a videoconference hearing.  See June 2016 correspondence.  

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

The AOJ should schedule the Veteran for a videoconference hearing before the Board in accordance with his request.  

The Veteran should be notified in writing of the date, time, and location of the hearing before the Board.  After the hearing is conducted, or if the Veteran withdraws the hearing request or fails to report for the scheduled hearing, the claims file should be returned to the Board in accordance with appellate procedures.

The Veteran has 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 for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.  See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West 2014).



_________________________________________________
ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR.
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2014), 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) (2015).