Citation Nr: 0323058 Decision Date: 09/08/03 Archive Date: 09/11/03 DOCKET NO. 02-08 676A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUE Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for a skin rash on the face, back, chest and arms, as due to Agent Orange exposure. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Tenner, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from April 1966 to March 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2001 rating decision that denied reopening the veteran's claim for service connection for a skin disability of the face, back, chest and arms, as due to exposure to herbicides (Agent Orange) in Vietnam. The veteran filed a notice of disagreement in January 2002. The RO issued a statement of the case (SOC) in July 2002. The RO received the veteran's substantive appeal in July 2002. In a letter received by the RO in October 2001, the veteran indicated that he suffered from traumatic arthritis, a history of sinusitis and a history of bronchitis, all due to exposure Agent Orange. Moreover, in July 2002, the veteran appears to claim entitlement to service connection for a history of sinusitis, bronchitis, headaches, facial burning, chronic pains over his body and memory loss. As the RO has not adjudicated these issues (and hence, they are not properly before the Board), and none of the issues is inextricably intertwined with the issue on appeal (see Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991)), they are referred to the RO for appropriate action. REMAND The Board notes that, after the issuance of the last statement of the case (SOC) in July 2002 and prior to the transfer of the case to the Board in April 2003, the RO received numerous outpatient VA treatment records (dated from October 2000 to October 2002) and a VA PTSD examination report dated in July 2002. The July 2002 statement of the case reflects RO consideration of VA outpatient treatment records through October 24, 2001. However, there is no indication that the RO reviewed the VA outpatient treatment records dated subsequent to October 2001 or the July 2002 VA PTSD examination report prior to transferring the case to the Board, since these records are not similarly cited to in the SOC or a subsequently issued supplemental SOC (SSOC). Accordingly, a remand for RO consideration of the claim on appeal in light of the above-referenced evidence, and issuance of an SSOC reflecting such consideration, is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31 and 19.37 (2002). 1. The RO should consider the petition to reopen the claim for service connection for a skin disability of the face, back, chest and arms in light of all pertinent evidence (to specifically include VA outpatient treatment records dated subsequent to October 2001, and the report of a July 2002 VA PTSD examination) and legal authority. 2. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the RO should provide to the veteran and his representative an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (to include clear reasons and bases for the RO's determinations) and afford them the opportunity to respond thereto before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The purpose of this REMAND is to afford due process; it is not the Board's intent to imply whether the benefits requested should be granted or denied. The veteran need take no action until otherwise notified, but he may furnish additional evidence and/or argument during the appropriate time frame. See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999); Colon v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 104, 108 (1996); Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 109 (1995); Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 141 (1992). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West 2002) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03. _________________________________________________ JACQUELINE E. MONROE Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2002).