Citation Nr: 1413858
Decision Date: 03/31/14 Archive Date: 04/10/14
DOCKET NO. 08-18 692 ) DATE
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss.
2. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left ear hearing loss.
REPRESENTATION
Veteran represented by: Texas Veterans Commission
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
The Veteran
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Zi-Heng Zhu, General Attorney
INTRODUCTION
The Veteran served on active duty from September 1970 to April 1974, December 1990 to July 1991, and February 2003 to September 2003.
This matter was originally before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2007 decision of the Waco, Texas Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2010, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before an Acting Veterans Law Judge (AVLJ). In March 2012, the Board issued a decision that denied the claims of entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss and entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left ear hearing loss.
ORDER TO VACATE
The Board may vacate an appellate decision at any time upon request of the appellant or his or her representative, or on the Board's own motion, when an appellant has been denied due process of law. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.904 (2013).
In September 2013, pursuant to a settlement agreement in the case of National Org. of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 725 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Board sent the Veteran a letter notifying him of an opportunity to receive a new decision from the Board that would correct any potential due process error relating to the duties of the AVLJ that conducted the July 2010 hearing. See Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488 (2010) (holding that the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2) apply to a hearing before the Board and that a VLJ has a duty to explain fully the issues and to suggest the submission of evidence that may have been overlooked). In November 2013, the Veteran responded that he wished to have the prior decision vacated and a new one issued in its place.
Accordingly, the March 2012 Board decision is vacated.
____________________________________________
D. C. SPICKLER
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals