Citation Nr: 0004338 Decision Date: 02/18/00 Archive Date: 02/23/00 DOCKET NO. 94-21 884 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and his wife ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Grace Jivens-McRae, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty for training from May 1960 to October 1960 and on active duty from October 1961 to August 1962 and from October 1990 to May 1991 (including service in the Persian Gulf). Additionally, the veteran has had 29 years of unverified Army reserves duty. This appeal arises from a January 1994 rating action of the Columbia, South Carolina, regional office (RO). In that decision, the RO denied service connection for diabetes mellitus and for hypertension. REMAND Previously, in May 1998 and December 1998, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus and for hypertension essentially to verify the dates of his reserve duty. In the December 1998 remand, the Board explained that, in the original remand in May 1998, verification of the veteran's Army reserve duty, including his active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA), had been requested. The Board also noted in the December 1998 remand that this unverified service represented approximately 29 years. Additionally, the Board noted in the December 1998 remand that the RO, pursuant to the original May 1998 remand instructions, had contacted the Headquarters, Department of the Army Reserve Command and the Department of the Army; the Office of the Adjutant General; and the United States Army Reserve Center and that the information received from these sources included the veteran's retirement points. However, as noted in the Board's December 1998 remand, what is needed in connection with the veteran's current service connection claims are his service personnel records which provide confirmation of the exact dates of his ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA service. The retirement points are not helpful in this regard. As the Board explained in the December 1998 remand, confirmation of the veteran's ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA dates is necessary because service connection may be awarded for disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by ACDUTRA or for injury incurred in or aggravated by INACDUTRA. Consequently, in the December 1998 remand, the Board asked the RO to contact the Department of the Army; Office of the Adjutant General; United States Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center in St. Louis, Missouri to verify the exact dates of the veteran's ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA service. (The Board also asked the RO, on remand, to obtain any additional records of treatment that the veteran may have received for his diabetes mellitus and hypertension.) Further review of the claims folder indicates that, following the Board's December 1998 remand, the RO obtained and associated with the claims folder records of pertinent treatment that the veteran had received for diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Additionally, in May 1999, the RO received from the National Archives and Records Administration some of the veteran's service personnel records. Significantly, however, only one of these documents provides information regarding the exact dates of the veteran's reserve service. (The pertinent record notes the veteran's various dates of inactive service between August 1980 and July 1991.) Furthermore, this document was previously received and considered by the RO. Significantly, the remainder of the veteran's reserve duty (outside of the August 1980 to July 1991 period) continues to be unverified. Consequently, another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (a remand by the Board imposes upon the Secretary a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand). For the reasons stated, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The veteran should be given an opportunity to supplement the record on appeal. Specifically, he should be asked about records of any recent treatment that he has received for diabetes mellitus and for hypertension. The RO should assist the veteran in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (1999). In addition, the RO should ask the veteran to specify the reserve units under which he has served. 2. Thereafter, the RO should contact each reserve unit identified by the veteran (pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Remand) and ask each organization to provide verification of the veteran's ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA service. The exact specific dates of each period wherein the veteran served on ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA should be provided. It should also be specified whether each period of duty was ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. This verification should be done (to the extent possible) for the veteran's entire 29 years of unverified duty. 3. When the requested development has been completed to the extent indicated, the RO should re-adjudicate the issues of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus and for hypertension. If the benefits sought are not granted, the veteran and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case and given an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The veteran need take no further action until he is informed, but he may furnish additional evidence and argument while the case is in remand status. Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 141 (1992); Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 109 (1995); and Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). The purpose of this remand is to comply with governing adjudicative procedures and to obtain clarifying evidence. 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 Supp. 1999) (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. THERESA M. CATINO Acting Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), 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) (1999).