Citation Nr: 23013167 Decision Date: 03/03/23 Archive Date: 03/03/23 DOCKET NO. 18-36 991 DATE: March 3, 2023 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for heart disease (also claimed as quadruple bypass, precordial chest pain and heart surgery) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1988 to January 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2016 rating decision issued by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). This matter was previously before the Board in August 2019 and most recently in August 2020 where it was remanded for additional evidentiary development. As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that by statement dated December 2021, the Veteran revoked his appointment of Disabled American Veterans (DAV) as his Power of Attorney. Further, a May 2022 letter notified the Veteran that VA acknowledged the revocation of representation by previous attorneys Jill Mitchell-Thein and Donny Johnson. VA indicated that the systems have been updated to reflect this change that the previous attorneys are no longer representing the Veteran. See Correspondence received May 2022. As the Veteran has not appointed another representative, the Board recognizes the Veteran as now proceeding pro se in this appeal. Issue: Entitlement to service connection for heart disease is remanded. The record shows the AOJ issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) dated December 2020. However, since the issuance of the December 2020 SSOC, additional evidence in the form of VA examinations dated July 2021, October 2021, February 2022, April 2022 and VA treatment records were added to the Veteran's electronic claims file in March 2022. The newly added evidence has not been considered by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) as required under 38 C.F.R. § 19.31(b)(1). Furthermore, by letter dated January 12, 2023, the Board notified the Veteran of his right to have the additional evidence reviewed by the AOJ before the Board decides the appeal. The letter also explained that this right may be waived by submitting a waiver in writing. The Veteran was afforded a period of 45 days from the date of the letter in which to respond. The Board explained that if no response was received by the end of the 45-day time period, "we will assume that you do not wish to have the Board decide your appeal at this time, and we will remand your appeal to the AOJ for review." See Correspondence dated January 2023. To date, no response or waiver has been received. The notification letter was sent to the correct mailing address provided by the Veteran. The record does not indicate any correspondence was returned undelivered. Consequently, the claims on appeal must be remanded for consideration of the additional pertinent evidence and issuance of another SSOC. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31, 19.37. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Review the record and any newly added evidence (including VA memorandum associated with the claims file following the issuance of the December 2020 SSOC), and readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the agency of original jurisdiction should provide the Veteran with SSOC. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. A., 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.