Citation Nr: 9911496 Decision Date: 04/28/99 Archive Date: 05/06/99 DOCKET NO. 97-27 164A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Jackson, Mississippi THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for skin cancer due to herbicide agent exposure (including Agent Orange). 2. Entitlement to service connection for carpal tunnel syndrome. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include post-traumatic stress disorder. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability. 7. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability. 8. Entitlement to an increased rating for traumatic arthritis of the left knee, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 9. Entitlement to an increased rating for traumatic arthritis of the left ankle, status post reconstruction of the lateral collateral ligaments, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 10. Entitlement to an increased rating for back strain, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 11. Entitlement to an increased rating for gastroesophageal reflux disease, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 12. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for hypertension. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Mississippi Veterans Affairs Board WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R.P. Harris, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant had active service from December 1968 to May 1985. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 1997 rating decision by the Jackson, Mississippi, Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for skin cancer due to herbicide agent exposure (including Agent Orange), carpal tunnel syndrome, a psychiatric disability (to include post-traumatic stress disorder), and disabilities of the left shoulder, neck, right ankle, and right shoulder; confirmed a 10 percent evaluation for traumatic arthritis of the left knee; confirmed a 10 percent evaluation for traumatic arthritis of the left ankle, status post reconstruction of the lateral collateral ligaments; confirmed a 10 percent evaluation for back strain; increased an evaluation gastroesophageal reflux disease from noncompensable to 10 percent, effective September 22, 1995; and confirmed a noncompensable evaluation for hypertension. A December 1997 RO hearing was held. REMAND In an August 1997 Notice of Disagreement (on a VA Form 9), appellant checked off a box indicating that he wanted a "Travel Board" hearing. However, in a September 1997 Substantive Appeal, he checked off a box indicating that he did not want a Board hearing, but wanted a hearing before an RO hearing officer. A hearing before an RO hearing officer was conducted in December 1997. Subsequently, the case was forwarded to the Board. In order to resolve any ambiguity as to whether appellant had withdrawn his August 1997 "Travel Board" hearing request, the Board's administrative staff sent him a letter in March 1999, requesting him to clarify whether he still desired a Board hearing. The following month, appellant responded in the affirmative, by requesting a Board hearing at the regional office (i.e., a "Travel Board" hearing). Since "Travel Board hearings" are scheduled by the RO (See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(a) (1998)), the Board is herein remanding the case for that purpose, in order to satisfy procedural due process concerns. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following: The RO should schedule a Travel Board hearing, and provide appellant and his representative notice thereof. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board in accordance with applicable procedures. These claims 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 (known as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals prior to March 1, 1999) 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 Supp. 1998) (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. MICHAEL D. LYON Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (known as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals prior to March 1, 1999). 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) (1998).