Citation Nr: 18147516
Decision Date: 11/06/18	Archive Date: 11/05/18

DOCKET NO. 08-25 916
DATE:	November 6, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for lupus is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for residuals of blood poisoning is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active duty service from June 1973 to October 1973, from March 1978 to September 1978, and from June 24, 1980, to June 25, 1980; and evidently also had active service from February 1981 to March 1981.  These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions.  
In June 2010, the Veteran testified at a hearing at the RO before an Acting Veterans Law Judge (VLJ).  A transcript of the hearing is of record.  
In February 2014, the Board remanded the claims for further development.  The claims have been returned to the Board.
The Acting VLJ who conducted the June 2010 hearing is no longer employed with the Board. In a February 2018 letter, the Veteran was informed that the VLJ who held the June 2010 hearing is no longer employed at the Board, and was offered the opportunity to have another hearing by a VLJ who would adjudicate the appeal.  No response to that letter was received. Therefore, the Board has determined that a further hearing is not warranted.  
1. The claims of entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder, lupus, a heart disorder and residuals of blood poisoning are remanded.
Following the most recent readjudication of the claims on appeal in a September 2017 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), additional pertinent medical evidence from the VA Medical Center (VAMC) was added to the claims file.  This evidence was submitted by the Veteran or his representative.
The Board notes that under section 501 of the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, Public Law (PL) 112-154, if new evidence is submitted by the veteran or his or her representative with or after a Substantive Appeal received on or after February 2, 2013, then such evidence is subject to initial review by the Board unless the veteran explicitly requests AOJ consideration.  38 U.S.C. § 7105(e). However, the new regulations do not apply here, as the Veteran’s Substantive Appeal was received in May 2009.  
The Board sent the Veteran and his representative a letter in September 2018 asking whether the Veteran waived his right to have the AOJ consider this additional evidence in the first instance.  In September 2018, the Veteran responded that he wanted the claims remanded for initial review by the AOJ.  Thus, the claims are being remanded back to the AOJ for a review of the newly received evidence.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.800, 20.1304(c); Disabled American Veterans v. Sec’y of Veteran’s Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. The issues on appeal should be readjudicated by the AOJ with consideration of all evidence added to the file since the issuance of the September 2017 SSOC, to include the treatment records from the VAMC.
2. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the fullest extent, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a SSOC and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review.

 
Evan Deichert
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Henriquez, Counsel