Citation Nr: 18143012
Decision Date: 10/17/18	Archive Date: 10/17/18

DOCKET NO. 10-33 348
DATE:	October 17, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for advanced keratoconus is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from August 1989 to September 1994 and from April 1997 to September 2002.
This matter is on appeal from a March 2009 rating decision.
In April 2013, the Board remanded the current issue of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for advanced keratoconus for clarification from the Veteran as to whether he wished to continue pursuing his appeal of such matter, and for the issuance of a statement of the case (SOC) addressing this matter if his response was in the affirmative.
Also in April 2013, the Board denied the issue of entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 7, 2008 for the award of service connection for advanced keratoconus, and additionally determined that there was no clear and unmistakable error in an October 2002 rating decision that denied service connection for amblyopia secondary to childhood esotropia (claimed as keratoconus).  Because a final Board decision was rendered with regard to these matters, they are no longer a part of the current appeal.
Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for advanced keratoconus.
As noted above, the Board remanded the current increased rating claim in April 2013 for the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to seek clarification from the Veteran as to whether he wished to continue pursuing his appeal of such matter, and for the issuance of an SOC addressing this matter (pursuant to Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999)) if his response was in the affirmative.
In an April 2016 letter, the AOJ asked the Veteran to clarify whether he still wished to pursue an appeal of his claim for an increased rating for his advanced keratoconus.  Thereafter, in an April 2016 telephone call (memorialized in writing on a VA Form 27-0820), the Veteran stated that he wished to continue the appeal process for his advanced keratoconus.
Given the Veteran’s affirmative response, the AOJ should have issued an SOC addressing this matter, as instructed by the Board’s April 2013 remand.  However, the AOJ did not take the requested action, and instead issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) addressing this matter in February 2018.  Thereafter, the Veteran did not respond, and his representative did not submit an appellate brief until September 2018.
On remand, an SOC must be issued for the matter of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for advanced keratoconus.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (where the remand orders of the Board are not complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance).
The Board notes that it will have full jurisdiction in this matter only if the Veteran perfects an appeal by timely filing a substantive appeal after an SOC is issued.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Issue an SOC addressing the matter of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for advanced keratoconus.  Advise the Veteran and his representative of the period of time afforded for submission of a substantive appeal.  If a substantive appeal is timely received, then the issue should be returned to the Board.
 
S. HENEKS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	L. B. Yantz, Counsel