Citation Nr: 18148336
Decision Date: 11/07/18	Archive Date: 11/07/18

DOCKET NO. 15-44 821
DATE:	November 7, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 11, 2010, for the grant of service connection for scar, left forehead, is remanded.
Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 11, 2010, for the grant of service connection for migraines, is remanded.
Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 11, 2010, for the grant of service connection for traumatic brain injury, is remanded.
Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 11, 2010, for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded.
Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for scar, left forehead, is remanded.
Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for traumatic brain injury is remanded.
Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for migraines is remanded.
Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent for PTSD is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active military service from February 1995 to June 1995 and from January 2005 to November 2005. The Veteran died in January 2016.
Subsequent to the Veteran’s death, in June 2016, the above listed claimant filed a Request for Substitution of Claimant Upon Death of Claimant. In August 2016 the claimant was notified that additional information was needed to establish him as the substitution claimant. In December 2016 the claimant was notified that the additional requested information was not received and the request to substitute was denied. The claimant was informed of his appellate rights. There is no indication that the claimant appealed the decision denying substitution. However, thereafter, in January 2017, the appeal was certified to the Board indicating that “[w]e have certified your substitution appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in Washington, D.C.” As such, it is unclear whether the claimant has been properly substituted for the Veteran or if there is an appeal regarding the denial of substitution. Thus, the case must be returned to the Regional Office for appropriate action to be taken to determine whether the claimant is the proper substitute.
 
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
Take all appropriate action to determine whether the above listed claimant is the proper substitute for the claim.
 
M.E. LARKIN
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Robert J. Burriesci, Counsel