Citation Nr: 18154053
Decision Date: 11/29/18	Archive Date: 11/28/18

DOCKET NO. 18-11 359
DATE:	November 29, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for aid and attendance or on housebound status is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from July 1958 to December 1963.  
This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO).
In August 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned.  A copy of the transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file.
1. SMC
The Veteran asserts entitlement to SMC based on the need for aid and attendance.  Currently, the Veteran is service connected for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus with a combined 30 percent evaluation.  
The Board observes that additional evidence has been added to the claims file following the last adjudication by the RO in the January 2018 statement of the case (SOC), including a May 2018 VA auditory examination obtained by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  The Board further observes that the Veteran has not waived AOJ consideration of the evidence associated with the record after the January 2018 SOC.
Given that the Veteran has not waived his right to have new evidence reviewed in the first instance, a remand is necessary.  38 C.F.R. § 19.37(b).
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. With any necessary identification of sources by the Veteran, request all VA treatment records not already associated with the file from the Veteran’s VA treatment facilities, and all private treatment records from the Veteran not already associated with the file.
(Continued on the next page)
 
2. Then, the AOJ must re-adjudicate the issue on appeal.  If the benefit sought remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran and his representative.  After the Veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review
 
S. HENEKS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	C. Lamb, Associate Counsel