Citation Nr: 21077625 Decision Date: 12/30/21 Archive Date: 12/30/21 DOCKET NO. 13-28 438A DATE: December 30, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for back pain is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for spinal stenosis, claimed as neck pain, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from February 1969 to September 1970. He died in January 2016. The appellant is the Veteran's surviving spouse. She has been accepted as the Veteran's substitute for purposes of processing his appeal to completion. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2021, the Board remanded these matters for additional development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for back pain and spinal stenosis, claimed as neck pain, are remanded. While the Board regrets the further delay, unfortunately, the matters must be remanded for correction of a due process deficiency. Specifically, the record reflects that the appellant is represented in her appeal by a private attorney, J.D. See Form 21-21a, March 2016. The Board notes that the private attorney, J.D., has not withdrawn her representation, nor has the appellant requested J.D. be removed as her representative. In April 2021, the appellant was provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). However, J.D., as her representative, was not furnished with a copy of this SSOC. Therefore, remand is necessary to send the appellant's representative a copy of the April 2021 SSOC. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: On remand, the RO must send a copy of the April 2021 SSOC to the appellant's representative. J.D. An appropriate period should be allowed for response before the case is returned to the Board. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Stuedemann, A. 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.