Citation Nr: 21010737
Decision Date: 02/25/21	Archive Date: 02/25/21

DOCKET NO. 20-19 510
DATE: February 25, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a total disability based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1968 to February 1971.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an April 2018 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the April 2020 VA Form 9, Substantive Appeal, the Veteran requested a formal hearing before the Decision Review Officer (DRO). 

According to the May 28, 2020 Report of General Information, an informal conference was scheduled with the Veteran’s attorney. The Veteran’s attorney had provided the DRO with two phone numbers to call for the conference. When the DRO called the two phone numbers, the DRO reached voice mail. The claims file does not indicate that the DRO notified the Veteran or the Veteran’s attorney that attempts were made on May 28, 2020 to reach the Veteran’s attorney for the informal conference and that those attempts were unsuccessful. The DRO hearing was not rescheduled. To ensure due process, the Board finds the Veteran’s claim must be remanded for a new DRO hearing.  

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for a DRO hearing with notification to the Veteran and his representative.

2. After completing the foregoing and any other development necessary, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim.

3. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, a Supplemental Summary of the Case (SSOC) should be furnished to the Veteran and his representative, and he and his representative should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond.

 

 

Cynthia M. Bruce

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Agarwal, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.