Citation Nr: 18145367
Decision Date: 10/30/18	Archive Date: 10/26/18

DOCKET NO. 16-04 552
DATE:	October 30, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include depression not otherwise specified, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety disorder (also claimed as panic/anxiety attacks, agitation) is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1988 to December 1988 and from October 1990 to June 1991. 
Although the Veteran’s initially filed separate claims for service connection for PTSD, an anxiety disorder and depression, as reflected on the title page, the Board has restyled the issue to include any potentially relevant psychiatric claims that are raised in the record which includes PTSD, an anxiety disorder and depression. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009).
1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include depression not otherwise specified, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety disorder (also claimed as panic/anxiety attacks, agitation) is remanded.
Upon review of the record, the Board finds remand is required to ensure the Veteran is provided a hearing before a decision review officer (DRO).
In a January 2016 appeal hearings options form submitted in connection with a VA Form 9 filing, the Veteran requested a local hearing with a Jackson, MS Decision Review Officer.  The VA Form 9 was not accepted as it was not signed, but the hearing options form was signed. There is no indication in the record that the requested DRO hearing was scheduled or that the request for a DRO hearing was withdrawn. The Veteran has the right to one DRO hearing on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1507(a)(2) (2017). In light of the Veteran’s pending request, which predate the January 2017 certification of the appeal, a remand is warranted for the RO to schedule a local hearing before a Jackson Regional Office DRO. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c).
The Board notes that the Veteran has clarified that she has elected to proceed pro se, and has declined a hearing before the Board.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Schedule the Veteran for a DRO hearing consistent with her January 2016 request. 







(continued on next page)
2. After completing the above action and any other development deemed necessary, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated. If the claim remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case should be provided to the Veteran. After she has had an adequate opportunity to respond, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review.

 
T. MAINELLI
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	T.S. Willie