Citation Nr: 21062326 Decision Date: 10/07/21 Archive Date: 10/07/21 DOCKET NO. 21-00 371 DATE: October 7, 2021 ORDER The appeal seeking entitlement to service connection for hypertension is dismissed. The appeal seeking entitlement to a compensable initial rating for anemia is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT Following a May 2019 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), the Veteran submitted a June 2019 VA Form 10182 in which he opted into the AMA review system and selected the hearing review lane. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the Veteran's appeal with respect to the claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 ; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2, 19.55, 20.205. 2. The Board does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the Veteran's appeal with respect to the claim of entitlement to a compensable initial rating for anemia. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 ; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2, 19.55, 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1967 to December 1968 and October 1970 to March 1971, including foreign service in the Republic of Vietnam. He received an "under conditions other than honorable" discharge for the second period of service. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded (among other decorations) the Purple Heart and Combat Infantryman Badge. This appeal has a prolonged and complicated procedural history. In pertinent part, these matters were remanded by the Board in September 2017 for additional development which has since been completed, including the acquisition of updated treatment records and provision of relevant VA examinations. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Following the September 2017 decision, the Veteran submitted numerous Motions for Reconsideration which were denied by the Board. See, e.g., February 2018 and July 2018 VA letters. Although the Veteran occasionally invoked the pending matters in his Motions, these issues had not yet been finally adjudicated by the Board and were not ripe for reconsideration. Additionally, the Veteran has recently conflated the matters on appeal; specifically, he has indicated his belief that the initial rating assigned to his service-connected erectile dysfunction (ED), rather than anemia, is currently before the Board. See , e.g., September 2021 representative's brief. At this time, the Board clarifies for the parties that the Veteran's entitlement to an initial compensable rating for anemia was remanded in the September 2017 decision and thus remains on appeal. Also during the pendency of this appeal, the Veteran has attempted to elect his spouse, M.E., as his representative. However, M.E. is not authorized to represent the Veteran in his appeals before the Board. Rather, the claims file also contains a valid VA Form 21-22 identifying Disabled American Veterans (DAV) as the Veteran's representative, and DAV continues to submit argument and evidence on the Veteran's behalf. As such, DAV is recognized as the Veteran's current representative in this appeal. The Veteran is advised that he may revoke DAV's representation at any time, should he so choose. Finally, the Veteran offered testimony on the pending matters during an October 2016 Central Office hearing; a transcript of this proceeding has been associated with the claims file. In September 2017, he was informed that the Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who presided over the hearing was no longer with the Board, and was offered a hearing before a different VLJ. The following month, he requested the opportunity to testify during another hearing. This hearing has not yet been provided. Rather, an SSOC was issued in May 2019, after which the Veteran submitted VA Form 10182 in the following month. See also September 2020 VA letter (requesting clarification as to which matters the Veteran intended to pursue under the modernized review system); September 2021 letter (wherein the Veteran reiterates his request that the instant matters be adjudicated under the modernized review system). As the Veteran's VA Form 10182 was received within 60 days of the May 2019 SSOC, he has properly withdrawn these appeals under the legacy system and opted into the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) modernized review system. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400(c)(2). As there remain no matters of fact or law for the Board's consideration, these appeals are hereby dismissed. These appeals will be adjudicated under the AMA system in due course; in this respect, the record reflects that the AMA appeal stream has already been assigned a distinct docket number throughout VA systems (see docket no. 190605-20760). Briefly, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran requested a new hearing in this matter in October 2017. As he requested the hearing review lane on his VA Form 10182, his request remains pending and will be fulfilled at a future date, at no harm to the Veteran. Of final note, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Kovarovic, 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.