Citation Nr: 18142466
Decision Date: 10/15/18	Archive Date: 10/15/18

DOCKET NO. 16-21 936
DATE:	October 15, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea, to include as secondary to service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded.
Entitlement to special monthly compensation(SMC) based on the need for regular aid and attendance, is remanded.
REFERRED ISSUE
In March 2018, the Veteran filed a claim alleging clear and unmistakable evidence (CUE) in an October 2002 rating decision as to the denial of an effective date earlier than January 17, 1996 for PTSD.  The record does not reflect that the RO has adjudicated the March 2018 CUE claim.  As such, it has not been developed for appellate consideration by the Board, and is referred to the RO for appropriate action.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active military service from March 1967 to October 1969.
These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Salt Lake City, Utah.
In connection with this appeal, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at the RO in September 2015.  A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file.
Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea, to include as secondary to service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and entitlement to special monthly compensation(SMC) based on the need for regular aid and attendance.
In a Remand dated February 26, 2018, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for additional development.  While additional evidence has been associated with the claims file subsequent to the February 26, 2018 Board remand, the record does not reflect that the RO has fully complied with the Remand actions requested, nor readjudicated the matters on appeal with consideration of the additional evidence, to include issuance of a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in the event that either benefit sought is denied.  As such, the matters must be remanded for compliance with the requested Remand actions.  Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:
1. The RO must complete that actions requested in the Board remand dated February 26, 2018, and thereafter, readjudicate the issues on appeal with consideration of all additional evidence obtained.  
2. If any benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement 
 
of the Case, and afford the appropriate time to respond before returning the case to the Board.  
 
U. R. POWELL
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Rachel Mamis