Citation Nr: 18145725 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/29/18 DOCKET NO. 15-09 618 DATE: October 30, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a back condition is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for arthritis of the left humeral head with rotator cuff tear is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1988 to November 1992. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Oakland, California. The Veteran initially requested to testify at a personal hearing before the Board, but, as discussed in further detail below, failed to appear. The Veteran’s representative filed a motion in June 2018, to withdraw representation. A ruling on the representative’s motion is not contained within the claims file; accordingly, representation remains unchanged. The Board notes that the Veteran initially appealed the issue of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and entitlement to an increased disability rating for a bilateral knee condition in a June 2012 notice of disagreement (NOD). The Veteran, however, withdrew both of these claims in a written statement submitted in March 2013, prior to the case being certified to the Board. Therefore, the aforementioned issues are not on appeal. In the March 2013 written statement, the Veteran purports to withdraw a claim for entitlement to an increased disability rating for a right clavicle condition. Review of the claims file indicates that this issue was not actually on appeal at the time, and the Board shall not address the issue any further. In the March 2013 written statement, the Veteran also purports to appeal the denial of service connection for peripheral neuralgia as secondary to his previously service- connected back condition and fracture of the left humeral head with rotator cuff tear. The RO interpreted this as a new claim for service connection, and, in June 2015, the RO denied service connection for peripheral neuralgia. The Veteran did not appeal or otherwise challenge the denial. Therefore, the Board shall not address the matter any further. In July 2016, the Veteran appealed the issue of entitlement to a nonservice-connected pension, but, in July 2016, the RO granted the Veteran a nonservice-connected pension. This is considered a full prayer of the Veteran’s requested prayer of relief, and the Board shall not address this issue any further. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a back condition and entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for arthritis of the left humeral head with rotator cuff tear are remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a back condition and a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for arthritis of the left humeral head with rotator cuff tear. Unfortunately, this matter must be remanded for further development. The Veteran initially requested a personal hearing before the Board. A hearing was scheduled, but the Veteran failed to appear. Normally, the Board would deem the Veteran’s request for a hearing withdrawn and dispose of the Veteran’s claims based on the record currently before it. In this case however, the Board has been notified that the Veteran is unreachable and likely homeless. The Veteran is currently in receipt of monetary benefits from the VA, and this suggests a potential lead to track the Veteran down. Given the Veteran’s potentially vulnerable status and VA’s mission to care for those who have borne the battle as well as VA’s core values of integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, and excellence (I CARE), the Board finds it appropriate, in this particular instance, to remand this matter in order for the RO to attempt to contact the Veteran. Additionally, several years have passed since the Veteran’s last VA examination, and the Veteran’s failure to attend his previously scheduled Board hearing may have been due to circumstances beyond his control. If, therefore, the RO successfully contacts the Veteran, then the RO should arrange for appropriate VA examinations to evaluate the severity of the Veteran’s claimed conditions; as well as schedule the Veteran for a personal hearing before the Boar if the Veteran still desires one. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to contact the Veteran. These attempts should at a minimum consist of: (a.) contacting the address that the Veteran’s monetary benefits are sent to – or the financial institution they are currently deposited in – in order to determine if the Veteran’s current contact information is obtainable; and (b.) contacting the Veterans Health Administration in order to determine if the Veteran is receiving VA health benefits; and, if so, whether the Veteran provided any contact information. (c.) The RO should also take any additional prudent steps to contact the Veteran. 2. If the attempts to contact the Veteran are unsuccessful, the aforementioned attempts should be memorialized in the Veteran’s claims file. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board without conducting any further development or completing any of the additional remand instructions listed below. 3. If contact with the Veteran is achieved, arrange for an appropriate VA examination in order to determine the current severity of the Veteran’s back condition and arthritis of the left humeral head with rotator cuff tear. 4. Annotate in the file whether the Veteran still wishes to have a hearing before the Board. 5. Then, readjudicate the claims on appeal. If the benefits sought are not granted, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case and allow an appropriate opportunity to respond thereto before returning the case to the Board, if in order. 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). These claims 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. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (2012). K. A. KENNERLY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD David R. Seaton, Associate Counsel