Citation Nr: 25015083
Decision Date: 12/19/25	Archive Date: 12/19/25

DOCKET NO. 18-11 544
DATE: December 19, 2025

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a sleep disorder is remanded.

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for chronic obstipation (initially rated as constipation) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from October 1985 to October 1988.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ).

In August 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of that hearing is in the record.

The Board remanded this matter in November 2023 and February 2024 for additional development.

The Veteran's attorney submitted correspondence requesting that he be allowed to withdraw as attorney of record in this matter since he has not had contact with the Veteran since January 2024, which made representation "impossible and impractical."  The Veteran was copied on the correspondence. See October 2025 correspondence. The Board finds that good cause has been shown and grants the representative's motion to withdraw.

1. Entitlement to service connection for a sleep disorder

2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for chronic obstipation (initially rated as constipation)

These issues were last adjudicated in an August 2024 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC).  New evidence, specifically VA and private treatment records, have since been associated with the claim file. In an October 2025 letter to the Veteran, the Board notified him that this new evidence was added to the claim file but was not considered by the AOJ.  In correspondence received that same month, the Veteran requested that the case be remanded to the AOJ for review of the additional evidence.   

Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Review all evidence of record. If the matter remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures, including the issuance of an SSOC if otherwise appropriate.

 

 

E. I. VELEZ

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.