Citation Nr: 18141286
Decision Date: 10/11/18	Archive Date: 10/10/18

DOCKET NO. 15-17 174
DATE:	October 11, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee strain with degenerative joint disease is remanded.
Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee strain with degenerative joint disease is remanded.
Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from February 1969 to November 1977.
The Veteran’s May 2015 substantive appeal for the issues above did not indicate whether the Veteran wanted an optional Board hearing; however, the Veteran indicated that he wanted a Decision Review Officer (DRO) hearing.  In a September 2015 DRO informal conference, the DRO noted that the Veteran agreed to an informal conference in lieu of an in-person hearing with the DRO.  At that conference, the Veteran and DRO agreed to schedule the Veteran for VA examinations as he plainly asserted that service-connected disabilities worsened.  In A September 2018 motion for remand, the Veteran’s representative noted that the Veteran still wanted a formal DRO hearing and that the Veteran did not understand that the September 2015 informal conference would be in place of his formal DRO hearing.  The Veteran believed the September 2015 DRO telephone call was in preparation for his formal DRO hearing.  Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran did not understand that the September 2015 informal DRO conference call was in lieu of a formal DRO hearing and that a formal DRO hearing must be scheduled.
The Board notes that VA regulations provide that an appellant will be accorded full right to representation in all stages of an appeal by a recognized organization, attorney, agent, or other authorized person. 38 C.F.R. § 20.600.  Furthermore, Veterans Benefits Administration policy provides that that a VA Form 646 (Statement of Accredited Representative in Appealed Case) gives an appellant’s representative an opportunity to review the appeal and submit a statement regarding the appeal prior to certification to the Board.  In the instant case, the Veteran’s formerly appointed representative did not provide a VA Form 646 although provided the opportunity to do so.  See December 2015 VA Regional Office memorandum to NABVETS.  Such should be afforded the Veteran’s current representative on remand.  
In August 2018, the Veteran’s representative submitted a motion to the Board to remand the above claims to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to schedule a DRO hearing.





								(Continued on the next page)
 
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
The Veteran should be scheduled for a Decision Review Officer (DRO) hearing in connection with this appeal.  Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order.
 
S. L. Kennedy
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Costello, Associate Counsel