Citation Nr: 21004926 Decision Date: 01/28/21 Archive Date: 01/28/21 DOCKET NO. 14-34 882A DATE: January 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for migraine headaches is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating for individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 2002 to November 2002 and from January 2005 to November 2005. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an October 2013 rating decision that denied an increased evaluation for PTSD and migraine headaches. In March 2018, the Veteran testified at a hearing before another Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing is of record. In August 2018, the Board remanded the claims for further development. The Veteran submitted a request to change representation, but the Board explained that it could not accept this request. On April 21, 2020, the agency of jurisdiction (AOJ) sent the Veteran a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). The Veteran was provided 30 days to respond to the SSOC if he wished. On May 20, 2020, the Veteran’s attorney requested an extension to respond to the SSOC. The attorney also filed a request for information, including the Veteran’s medical records. On June 25, 2020, the AOJ did not respond to the Veteran’s request for an extension to respond to the SSOC and certified the case to the Board. On September 25, 2020, the Veteran’s attorney again requested additional time to submit records and respond to the SSOC. The attorney indicated that she had not received the information requested by her in May 2020. On January 12, 2021, the Veteran’s attorney was provided a copy of the Veteran’s complete claims file. The Board finds that remand is required because the AOJ did not consider the Veteran’s request for an extension. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.53. Here, the Veteran’s attorney filed a timely request for an extension, but the AOJ certified the case to the Board without considering the request. On remand, the AOJ should address the Veteran’s timely request for an extension. The Board notes that the Veteran previously testified at an administrative hearing before a VLJ who is no longer employed by the Board. On July 9, 2020, the Board informed the Veteran that he could request a new hearing and that the Board would assume that a new hearing was not wanted if the Veteran did not respond within 30 days of the notice. No response was received. The Board, however, presumes that no response was received due to the pending request for an extension to respond to the SSOC. Therefore, if any of the claims are returned to the Board, the Veteran should indicate if he wants a new hearing as stated in the July 9, 2020, notice. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Address the Veteran’s timely request for an extension of the period to respond to the April 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Craig Ormson, Associate 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.