Citation Nr: 18149623
Decision Date: 11/14/18	Archive Date: 11/13/18

DOCKET NO. 16-24 917
DATE:	November 14, 2018
REMANDED
Whether the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) committed clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in reducing the Veteran’s disability rating for bilateral visual impairment from 100 to 90 percent, effective November 1, 2010, in a July 2010 rating decision, is remanded. 
Entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 28, 2013 for the award of a 100 percent rating under 38 U.S.C. § 1160 for bilateral visual impairment, left eye blindness, right eye deficient visual acuity, is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active service from April 1966 to April 1969, with a dishonorable for VA purposes period of service from April 1969 to February 1971.
Initially, the Board notes that in an April 2016 Statement of the Case, the RO addressed the issues of (1) entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of a 100 percent rating for bilateral visual impairment and (2) entitlement to a special home adaptation grant.  The Veteran subsequently limited his appeal exclusively to the issue of an earlier effective date for his bilateral visual impairment on his May 2016 substantive appeal (VA Form 9).  Accordingly, the claim for a special home adaptation grant is not before the Board.
In a July 2010 rating decision, the AOJ reduced the Veteran’s disability rating for bilateral visual impairment, left eye blindness, right eye deficient visual acuity (paired organ) from 100 to 90 percent effective November 1, 2010.  The Veteran did not appeal.
The Veteran filed a claim for increase in January 2013.  In an August 2014 rating decision, the AOJ awarded a 100 percent rating effective January 28, 2013.  In the same decision, the AOJ also adjudicated whether CUE existed in the prior determination to reduce benefits, finding no CUE in the reduction.  The Veteran disagreed with the assigned effective date for the increased rating, as well with the determination that there was no error in reducing his disability rating.  The AOJ issued a Statement of the Case in April 2016 that addressed the Veteran’s claim for an earlier effective date prior to January 28, 2013 for the award of the increased rating, but did not address whether CUE existed in the AOJ’s prior decision to reduce benefits.  The Veteran continues to argue error in the reduction.  
Because the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement with the AOJ’s August 2014 CUE determination, and no Statement of the Case has been issued addressing that matter, the Board must take jurisdiction of the CUE claim for the limited purpose of remanding it so that the AOJ can provide a Statement of the Case.  See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999).
The Veteran’s claim for the assignment of an effective date earlier than January 28, 2013 for the award of a 100 percent rating is intertwined with the outcome of the Veteran’s pending CUE claim.  Accordingly, a decision on the issue must be deferred.  
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Issue a Statement of the Case to the Veteran and his representative addressing whether the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) committed clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in reducing the Veteran’s disability rating for bilateral visual impairment from 100 to 90 percent, effective November 1, 2010, in a July 2010 rating decision.  Only if the Veteran perfects an appeal by submitting a timely VA Form 9 should the issue be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration.
2. Upon completion of the above, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim for the assignment of an effective date earlier than January 28, 2013 for the award of a 100 percent rating for bilateral visual impairment, if not already rendered moot by the intertwined CUE adjudication referenced above.  If the benefit sought on appeal is denied, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case. 

 
V. Chiappetta
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Polly Johnson, Associate Counsel