Citation Nr: 22014547 Decision Date: 03/14/22 Archive Date: 03/14/22 DOCKET NO. 19-14 021 DATE: March 14, 2022 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1968 to June 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an October 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously remanded by the Board in March 2020 and February 2021. A review of the claims file shows that there has been substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The case has been returned to the Board for review. In February 2021, the Board remanded the claim of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability for additional development. An October 2021 rating decision granted entitlement to service connection for right knee strain. As this represents a total grant of the benefit sought on appeal with respect to this issue, it is no longer before the Board. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Veteran is within the time period to disagree with the rating and/or effective date assigned if he wishes to do so. The Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) of the Board in August 2019. The law requires that the VLJ who conducts a hearing on an appeal must participate in any decision made on that appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 7107 (c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.707. However, the VLJ who conducted the August 2019 Board hearing is no longer employed by the Board. In January 2022, the Veteran and his representative were sent a letter notifying them that the VLJ who presided over the August 2019 hearing is no longer employed by the Board, and offering another hearing before a different VLJ. The letter notified the Veteran that he had 30 days from the date of letter to respond and that if no response was received the Board will assume the Veteran does not want another hearing and the Board will proceed accordingly. The Veteran did not respond to the letter. As such, the Board will consider the case on the evidence of record. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability is remanded. As noted above, the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service-connection for a skin disability was remanded in a February 2021 Board decision. Pursuant to the February 2021 Board decision, a VA medical opinion was obtained in August 2021. Subsequent to the VA medical opinion, the AOJ continued the denial of service connection for a skin disability in a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) issued in October 2021. The AOJ explained that the evidence of record does not show the Veteran's skin disability is related to his active military service. In a December 2021 correspondence, the Veteran's representative requested an in-person Decision Review Office (DRO) hearing at the Veteran's regional office related to the issue on appeal. The Veteran's attorney argued that the request for a DRO hearing should be considered timely due to the recent printing and mailing delay in the Government Publishing Office (GPO). The Board acknowledges the GPO printing and mailing delay; however, DRO hearings are scheduled and conducted at the RO. On remand, the RO should determine whether the Veteran's request for a DRO hearing is timely, and if so, schedule the Veteran for a DRO hearing. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Determine whether the Veteran's December 2021 request for a DRO hearing is timely; if so, schedule the Veteran for a DRO hearing on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a skin disability. If the Veteran's request is deemed untimely, he should be notified of this determination. L. ANDERSEN Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. G. LeMoine, 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.