Citation Nr: 18149433
Decision Date: 11/09/18	Archive Date: 11/09/18

DOCKET NO. 16-39 423
DATE:	November 9, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent disabling for right knee degenerative joint disease (DJD), is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from August 1981 to August 2001. 
1. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent disabling for right knee degenerative joint disease (DJD), is remanded.
The Board finds that additional pertinent evidence has been added to the record since the most recent Statement of the Case, dated July 2016.  This evidence includes an August 2017 VA Knee and Lower Leg Condition examination.  The Board notes that this evidence was associated with the claims file following the May 2017 certification of the appeal to the Board, and that there is no waiver from the Veteran of consideration of newly associated evidence by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in the first instance. 
While the Board is cognizant that 38 U.S.C. § 7105(e) provides an automatic waiver of initial AOJ review if a veteran submits evidence to the AOJ, or to the Board with, or after submission of, a substantive appeal in cases where the substantive appeal was filed on or after February 2, 2013, here, the evidence is VA-generated medical evidence, and not evidence submitted by the Veteran.  Thus, the Board finds that an automatic waiver of jurisdiction cannot be applied in this case.
Therefore, the evidence must be returned to the AOJ for consideration in the first instance and, if necessary, preparation of a Supplemental Statement of the Case. 
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Review all evidence added to the electronic file since the July 2016 Statement of the Case that pertains to the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating for his service-connected right knee.  
2. After undertaking any additional development which may be necessary, readjudicate the claim on appeal to determine if entitlement to the benefits sought is warranted.  
(Continued on the next page)
 
3. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and be given the opportunity to respond.
 
T. REYNOLDS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	L. Nelson, Associate Counsel