93 Decision Citation: BVA 93-01689 Y93 BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 DOCKET NO. 91-19 249 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for low back disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. M. Barnard, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran, had active duty for training from September 1986 to September 1987 under the provisions of 32 U.S.C. 502(f) and active duty from January 1988 to February 1990. Service in 1985 is, as yet, unverified and the nature of service from June 1986 to August 1986 is unverified. He has appealed the October 1990 rating decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (hereinafter RO), by submitting a notice of disagreement in February 1991. That same month, the RO issued a statement of the case to the veteran, to which he responded with a substantive appeal in March 1991. The case was originally received and docketed at the Board in April 1991. The veteran has been represented throughout his appeal by The American Legion, which submitted additional written argument to the Board in May 1991. This case was then remanded for further development by this Board in August 1991. Following this remand, a rating action was issued in April 1992 by the RO. That same month, a supplemental statement of the case was issued to the veteran. The case was again received and docketed at the Board in October 1992. The veteran's representative submitted additional written argument to the Board in November 1992. REMAND In reviewing the record, we note that in his February 1991 notice of disagreement, the veteran indicated that he had been treated for his knee injury in 1985 at Clinic number 7 at Fort Benning, Georgia, and for his back in 1989 at George Air Force Base, California. However, we see no evidence in the record that the RO ever made any attempt to contact these facilities to ascertain if they had any additional medical records concerning treatment of the veteran. Furthermore, the RO made no attempt to contact the Florida Army National Guard to request copies of any service medical records. Finally, the RO did not verify all the veteran's service. VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1991). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals has held that the duty to assist the veteran in obtaining and developing available facts to support his claim includes obtaining medical records to which the veteran has referred. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). Under the circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that additional assistance is required and the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: 1. The RO should contact the hospital at Fort Benning, Georgia, and request any copies of treatment records pertaining to the veteran developed in 1985, if available. Once obtained, they should be associated with the claims folder. 2. The RO should contact the hospital at George Air Force Base in California and request any copies of treatment records pertaining to the veteran, if available. Once obtained, these should be associated with the claims folder. In particular, the veteran has specified treatment in March or April 1989. 3. The RO should contact the Florida Army National Guard and request copies of any treatment records they may have pertaining to the veteran. Once obtained, these should then be associated with the claims folder. 4. The RO should verify the dates and nature of the veteran's service in 1985 and the nature of his service (i.e.,active duty or active duty duty for training) from June 1986 to August 1986. Following completion of these actions, the RO should review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claim may now be granted. If not, the veteran and his representative should be provided with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 D. W. DATLOW, M. D. I. S. SHERMAN C. W. SYMANSKI 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 Veterans Appeals. 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. 57 Fed. Reg. 4126 (1992) (to be codified as 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)).