Citation Nr: 21003229
Decision Date: 01/21/21	Archive Date: 01/21/21

DOCKET NO. 16-32 124
DATE: January 21, 2021

REMANDED

The claim for special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for regular aid and attendance or housebound status is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from December 1965 to December 1967.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In July 2016, the Veteran requested a videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.  In a March 2016 letter, the Veteran was notified of the date and time of the scheduled hearing.  However, the record shows that he did not appear for the hearing or provide an explanation for his failure to appear.  Accordingly, his hearing request is considered withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d).

1. The claim for SMC based on the need for regular aid and attendance or housebound status is remanded.

After a statement of the case (SOC) was issued in June 2016, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) obtained additional relevant VA treatment records and provided the Veteran with another VA mental health examination in August 2016.  However, a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) has not been issued which considers this additional pertinent evidence.  See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31(b); Sprinkle v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1180, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (noting that an SSOC is issued when additional pertinent evidence is received by the AOJ after the issuance of a SOC “[t]o ensure that claimants receive the benefit of this two-tiered review within the agency.”).  In November 2020, VA sent the Veteran and his representative a letter indicating that the Veteran could waive AOJ consideration of this additional evidence by completing the attached waiver form.  The Veteran was advised that if he did not submit a waiver within 45 days, VA would presume that he did not wish to waive AOJ consideration, and the claim would be remanded for AOJ review in the first instance.  To date, the Veteran has not indicated that he wishes to waive AOJ consideration.  Accordingly, a remand is necessary for the AOJ to consider this additional pertinent evidence in the first instance.  See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31(b).

Updated VA treatment records should also be requested. 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain and associate with the claims file VA treatment records dated December 2016 to the present.

2. If the claim remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with an SSOC which considers all of the evidence associated with the record since the June 2016 SOC was issued.  

 

 

K. A. BANFIELD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	C. Banister, Counsel

The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.