Citation Nr: 18157338 Decision Date: 12/12/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 16-07 570 DATE: December 12, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an increased evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected pigment dispersion glaucoma is dismissed. REMANDED Whether the severance of service connection for pigment dispersion glaucoma was proper is remanded. FINDING OF FACT In March 2018, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal of an increased rating, the RO severed service connection for pigment dispersion glaucoma from the date of the initial grant of service connection, thereby rendering no period for consideration of any increased evaluation. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appeal concerning entitlement to an increased evaluation in excess of 10 percent for pigment dispersion glaucoma is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1991 to November 1999. This case before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) has had an irregular procedural history, as set out in more detail below. Briefly here, the Veteran sought an increased rating for his pigment dispersion glaucoma, which was denied. As an appeal was developing, the RO severed service connection for that disability, effective from the date of the original grant, yet the issue of an increased rating was activated for the Board’s review. Since, however, the RO severed service connection for this condition for the entire period of appeal, there remains no issue in controversy with respect to an increased rating claim. As such, the claim for an increased rating is dismissed as a matter of law, as there is no case or controversy; or dispute of fact or law, regarding this issue. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); see also Baughman v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 563, 566 (1991). REASONS FOR REMAND Historically, in March 2014, the Veteran filed a claim for an increased evaluation for his then service-connected pigment dispersion glaucoma, which was denied. The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) with that decision in January 2015. In a February 2016 statement of the case (SOC) and subsequent rating decision, rather than addressing an increased rating, the Veteran was notified that service connection for his pigment dispersion glaucoma was proposed to be severed. The issue of the previously appealed entitlement to an increased evaluation was not discussed at all. The Veteran then submitted a VA Form 9 in February 2016, which would have been the appropriate action to perfect an appeal of the increased rating denial, had that been the subject of the statement of the case. However, because a Form 9 had been timely submitted after a statement of the case, an appeal was mechanically activated at the Board, which has been dismissed above. A few years after the RO’s proposal to sever service connection, in March 2018, the RO issued a rating action that formally severed service connection for pigment dispersion glaucoma, effective from January 2009. The Veteran himself, has not responded to the notice of that action, but in connection with the matter the Board dismissed above, the Veteran’s representative submitted an “Appellant’s Brief” arguing the action to sever service connection was incorrect. This is not the proper form on which to initiate an appeal, which is accomplished only by the submission of a VA Form 21-0958, (Notice of Disagreement). However, given the irregular procedural history of this case, and the fact that there remains time in which to submit a notice of disagreement with the severance action on the proper form, and under Manlincoln v. West, 12 Vet. App 238, 240-241, an unprocessed NOD shall be remanded, not referred, the Board will Remand the issue of severance of service connection, as set out below. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should contact the Veteran in writing to give him the opportunity to submit a notice of disagreement on the appropriate form on the issue of whether the action to sever service connection for his pigment dispersion glaucoma was proper. 2. In the event that the Veteran submits a timely appeal on the appropriate form, the RO must issue a Statement of the Case on whether the severance of service connection for pigment dispersion glaucoma was proper. The RO should advise the Veteran of the need to timely file a substantive appeal to perfect appellate review. MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Dodd, Counsel