This per curiam order followed prior appellate proceedings in which the Court had remanded the case, received a Board decision on remand, and later affirmed that Board decision after the appellant sought another remand to submit additional evidence. The appellant then asked for en banc review, arguing that his request for remand did not waive the issues previously raised in his statement of issues and that no court rule barred him from later briefing the merits. In response, the Court sua sponte held issuance of its judgment in abeyance, also held the en banc motion in abeyance, and ordered the Secretary to file a designation of all material in the Secretary’s and Board’s record that had not previously been made part of the appellate record. The order reflects the Court’s attention to the completeness of the record and to the appellant’s argument that he had not abandoned his preserved appellate claims by seeking remand for additional evidence.

A request for remand to submit additional evidence does not, by itself, necessarily waive preserved appellate issues, and the Court may hold judgment in abeyance while ensuring the record is complete.

Practitioners should be careful not to assume that a remand request automatically forfeits merits arguments. This order also underscores the importance of preserving and designating the complete record when appellate procedure becomes contested.

Although brief and procedural, the order is useful for appeal strategy because it addresses the relationship between remand practice, issue preservation, and the completeness of the appellate record. It can support arguments that a veteran did not intentionally abandon issues merely by seeking additional development.

Treating a remand request as a waiver of preserved appellate issues.

A veteran asks the Court to remand a case so new medical evidence can be added, but later wants to continue briefing the original issues. Counsel cites Hatlestad to argue the remand request did not necessarily waive the merits arguments already preserved.

Use this order to support arguments against waiver or abandonment where a remand was sought for additional development but the appellant intended to preserve substantive issues for later review. It may also support requests to complete or designate the record in contested appellate proceedings.