Citation Nr: 18144171
Decision Date: 10/24/18	Archive Date: 10/23/18

DOCKET NO. 15-12 557
DATE:	October 24, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for cervical disability, to include degenerative disc disease (DDD), degenerative joint disease (DJD), torticollis, and spondylosis, is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar disability, to include DDD, DJD, sprain, scoliosis, and spondylosis, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from August 1974 to October 1975.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
In April 2015, the Veteran requested a Board hearing at a local office.  He was notified of his scheduled September 2018 hearing by a letter dated in August 2018.  In September 2018, the RO received correspondence from the Veteran, through his representative, seeking to withdraw the Board hearing request.  As such, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn.
Evidence in the record suggests that the Veteran has been diagnosed with multiple neck and back conditions; therefore, the Board will broadly construe the issues as a claim for service connection for a cervical spine disability and a lumbar spine disability however diagnosed.  Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 6 (2009) 
Entitlement to service connection for cervical DDD and Lumbar DJD is remanded.
VA treatment records were added to the claim file in January 2017 and May 2018. In September 2018, the Veteran requested that the case be remanded to the AOJ for review of the additional evidence submitted in his appeal.  Therefore, the Veteran has not waived initial review by the AOJ and a remand for readjudication is needed.  
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should readjudicate the issues on appeal with consideration of all of the evidence associated with the record since the most recent Statement of the Case of February 2015.  The Veteran should be afforded adequate time in which to respond. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the appeal should be returned to the Board.  
 
E. I. VELEZ
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	A. Roe, Associate Counsel