Citation Nr: 0812074 Decision Date: 04/11/08 Archive Date: 04/23/08 DOCKET NO. 05-39 878 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis and gout of the left foot and ankle. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Lindio, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from November 1974 until November 1978 and subsequent service with the National Guard. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2005 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. A videoconference hearing was held before the undersigned acting Veterans Law Judge in January 2008. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The veteran essentially asserts that he has a left foot or ankle disorder that was incurred in service. He reports that he sustained injuries to the ankle and foot during service, and this required surgery after service. During the hearing held in January 2008, he recounted developing foot problems after long marches during his active service with the Marine Corps. Additionally, in his January 2008 hearing, he indicated that his foot disorder was reinjured during a physical fitness test with the National Guard. Although service records have been associated with the claims file, his National Guard records have not been so associated. These records may be probative to the veteran's claim and should be obtained prior to an adjudication of the appeal. Additionally, all periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA), and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) during his National Guard service should also be verified. The veteran also reported that he received treatment for his foot from his family physician Dr. Cecil Parker and from a Dr. Wariski, during his hearing. These records are not associated with the claims file and no attempt has been made to obtain these medical records. These records must be requested prior to Board review of the appellant's claim. The Board notes that the veteran was not provided a VA examination in regards to his claim. Such a VA medical opinion should be obtained to determine whether it is at least as likely as not that he has a current disability related to service. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should request documentation showing the veteran's specific dates of active service, active duty for training and/or inactive duty training, as well as any medical records associated with his service. If no such records exist, that finding should be documented in the claims file. 2. The RO/AMC should contact the veteran and request information concerning his medical treatment following his discharge, including all his treatment providers related to his claimed left foot or ankle disorder not already of record. After obtaining the necessary authorizations from the veteran, the RO/AMC should then obtain the veteran's applicable medical records and associate them with the claims file, specifically including the records identified during the hearing, of Dr. Cecil Parker and Dr. Wariski. 3. After the requested medical records have been associated with the claims file, the RO should arrange for the veteran to undergo an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature, extent, onset, and etiology of any left foot or ankle disorder found to be present. The claims folder should be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. All indicated studies should be performed, and all findings should be reported in detail. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any left ankle or foot disorder found to be present had its onset in or is related to service, including his National Guard service. In discussing his/her opinions, the examiner should acknowledge the veteran's lay statements of record relating to the onset of the veteran's disorder. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided in a legible report. 4. When the development requested has been completed, the case should again be reviewed by the RO on the basis of the additional evidence. If the benefit sought is not granted, the veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case, and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. 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 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). ____________________________________________ MICHAEL MARTIN Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), 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) (2007).