Citation Nr: 18141369 Decision Date: 10/10/18 Archive Date: 10/10/18 DOCKET NO. 16-24 518A DATE: October 10, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Army from July 1966 to April 1968. The issue is on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision. In a December 2017 rating decision, the regional office (RO) denied the Veteran’s claims seeking entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea; peripheral neuropathy, left upper extremity; and peripheral neuropathy, right upper extremity. Subsequently, the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) contesting that decision in January 2018. The RO acknowledged the Veteran’s January 2018 NOD in a letter sent in the same month, with respect to these three issues. Therefore, this situation is distinguishable from Manlincon (where an NOD had not been recognized), and a Manlincon remand is not warranted at this time. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. As the procedural history for this claim is convoluted, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) will briefly review it. The Veteran originally filed a claim for TDIU in February 2014. In a September 2014 rating decision, the claim was denied. The Veteran filed a timely NOD in October 2014 and the RO issued a statement of the case (SOC) in February 2016. No correspondence from the Veteran or his representative; nor a letter stating the SOC was returned to VA marked “return to sender, unable to forward,” is associated with the Veteran’s file within the 60-day deadline to file an appeal after the SOC was sent. In June 2016, the Veteran filed a statement with his congressman, Representative Tom Graves, stating that he had not heard from the RO regarding his claim. Subsequent correspondence showed that the Veteran and his representative both claimed they had not received a SOC, and wished for the 60-day deadline to file an appeal to restart. The Veteran filed a substantive appeal in June 2016. In the same month, the RO sent notification to the Veteran that they could not accept his substantive appeal, as it was not timely, and therefore his appeal was closed. In July 2016, the RO also sent the same message to Representative Graves’ office. In January 2017, the Veteran submitted an application to reopen his claim of entitlement for TDIU, along with an increased rating claim for his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a service connection claim for Parkinson’s disease. In February 2017, the RO sent notification to the Veteran stating that his claim of entitlement for TDIU could not be addressed because it was currently a pending appeal. Subsequently, in June 2017, a rating decision on the PTSD and Parkinson’s disease claims were issued, and the claim of entitlement for TDIU was undecided because it was “currently on appeal and [could not] be addressed or considered within this rating decision.” In September 2017, the Veteran filed a NOD for a claim of entitlement for TDIU; an increased rating claim for PTSD; and a service connection claim for Parkinson’s disease. It is clear that there is confusion with the RO on the status of the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to TDIU, as it first told the Veteran that his claim of appeals stemming from the September 2014 rating decision was closed; and then it refused to make a decision on the claim in the June 2017 rating decision because his claim was considered a pending appeal. Therefore, the Board finds that, as the RO has not yet provided the Veteran with a SOC addressing the claims from the June 2017 rating decision, the Board must remand the issues of (1) entitlement to TDIU; (2) entitlement to increased rating for the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD; and (3) entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease. Thereafter, the RO must send the Veteran a SOC for these issues and allow the Veteran and his representative the opportunity to perfect an appeal of each issue. Manlincon, supra. The Board notes that in September 2018, the Veteran’s representative submitted a letter withdrawing his videoconference hearing request from the June 2016 substantive appeal. The Board notes that although the June 2016 substantive appeal was not accepted by the RO, and so the withdrawal may be moot, the Board considers the Veteran’s request for a hearing to be withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d), (e) (2017). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO must provide the Veteran a SOC with respect to the issues of (1) entitlement to TDIU; (2) entitlement to an increased rating for the service-connected PTSD; and (3) entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease.   Thereafter, these issues should be returned to the Board only if an adequate and timely substantive appeal is filed. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Lee, Associate Counsel