Citation Nr: 18144644 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/24/18 DOCKET NO. 16-10 080 DATE: October 25, 2018 ORDER Service connection for arthritis is dismissed. Service connection for a back disability is dismissed. Service connection for a lung disability is dismissed. Service connection for a sleep disorder is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to non-service-connected pension benefits is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have arthritis that is related to or a result of active duty service, and has withdrawn the claim. 2. The Veteran does not have a back disability that is related to or a result of active duty service and has withdrawn the claim. 3. The Veteran does not have a lung disability that is related to or a result of active duty service and has withdrawn the claim. 4. The Veteran does not have a sleep disorder that is related to or a result of active duty service and has withdrawn the claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board lacks jurisdiction over the claim of service connection for arthritis because there is no claim or controversy; thus, the claim is moot. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.7, 20.101, 20.200, 20.202 (2017). 2. The Board lacks jurisdiction over the claim of service connection for a back disability because there is no claim or controversy; thus, the claim is moot. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.7, 20.101, 20.200, 20.202 (2017). 3. The Board lacks jurisdiction over the claim of service connection for a lung disability because there is no claim or controversy; thus, the claim is moot. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.7, 20.101, 20.200, 20.202 (2017). 4. The Board lacks jurisdiction over the claim of service connection for a sleep disorder because there is no claim or controversy; thus, the claim is moot. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.7, 20.101, 20.200, 20.202 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty service from January 1969 to July 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision and a December 2015 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. When there is no case or controversy, or when a once live case or controversy becomes moot, the Board lacks jurisdiction. See Bond v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 376, 377 (1992); Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 12, 15 (1990). In August 2015, the Veteran applied for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits, but did not indicate whether these were service-connected disabilities. In September 2015, the Veteran submitted a statement that his August 2015 application was for “non-service-connected not service-connected” disabilities. See September 2015 Veteran Statement. In October 2015, the Veteran stated that his claim was for non-service-connected disabilities. See Veteran’s Supplemental Claim for Compensation. In November 2015, the Veteran submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD) and a statement, that his claims were for non-service-connected disabilities. In March 2016, the Veteran stated that his disabilities were not service-connected and reported that he “never applied for a service-connected disability.” See March 2016 Appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Given that the Veteran has repeatedly denied that the claimed disability is service-connected, there is no “controversy” or “issue” currently before the Board. See Shoen v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 456, 457 (1994) (a case or controversy must exist to obtain appellate review). The law provides that the Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(5) (2012). 1. Arthritis As the Veteran denies that his alleged arthritis is service-connected, there remains no error of fact or law for the Board to address, and the appeal must be dismissed. 2. Back disability As the Veteran denies that his alleged back disability is service-connected, there remains no error of fact or law for the Board to address, and the appeal must be dismissed. 3. Lung disability As the Veteran denies that his alleged lung disability is service-connected, there remains no error of fact or law for the Board to address, and the appeal must be dismissed. 4. Sleep disorder As the Veteran denies that his alleged sleep disorder is service-connected, there remains no error of fact or law for the Board to address, and the appeal must be dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Pension benefits In December 2015, the Veteran was denied non-service-connected pension benefits. In March 2016, the Veteran submitted an Appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals in which he specifically stated that he was appealing the December 2015 denial of pension benefits and that the claimed disabilities were non-service-connected. The RO did not notify the Veteran that a standard Notice of Disagreement form was required, nor was a statement of the case (SOC) issued. As no form was provided to the Veteran, the March 2016 submission will constitute a NOD. 38 C.F.R. § 20.201(b). Therefore, as the claim is now in appellate status and is properly before the Board, it must be remanded so that a SOC can be issued and the Veteran can be afforded the opportunity to perfect his appeals. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: Issue a statement of the case with respect to the issue of non-service-connected pension benefits. Allow the Veteran an appropriate amount of time to submit an appeal, and should the appeal be perfected, return the claim to the Board for adjudication. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (2012). Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Carolyn Colley, Associate Counsel