Citation Nr: 0813763 Decision Date: 04/25/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 06-04 172 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Togus, Maine THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of cold injuries to the bilateral hands and feet. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Saira Sleemi, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1952 to July 1954. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2005 rating decision of the Regional Office (RO) that denied service connection for residuals of cold injuries to the bilateral hands and feet. 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 Board finds that there is a further VA duty to assist the veteran in developing evidence pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2007). The veteran states that he served on active duty in Korea, where he suffered cold injuries to his hands and feet. Service treatment and personnel records are unavailable. The service department indicated that they may have been destroyed in a fire and no records could be found. The veteran's discharge certificate (DD Form 214) indicates that he spent 1 year, 5 months and 21 days of foreign service but does not indicate where this foreign service took place. The DD Form 214 shows the veteran's receipt of the National Defense Service Medal, but no other medals. As the veteran's service treatment and personnel records are unavailable, the RO/AMC should issue a letter to the veteran informing him of the unavailability of these records and that they may have been destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). The letter should also ask the veteran to provide the dates (months and year) of his claimed service in Korea, his unit of assignment at that time, and any proof he may have in his possession of Korean service, such as the Korean Service Medal, in order to verify his service in Korea. See 38 C.F.R. 3.159(c)(2). If the veteran is able to provide sufficient information regarding his dates of Korean service and his unit of assignment, the RO/AMC should attempt to verify that the veteran's unit was present in Korea during winter months through official sources, such as the U. S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC). Additionally, the veteran indicated that he has been treated by the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Togus, Maine for many years. The medical evidence of record, which currently only dates back to July 2004, indicates that the veteran was also treated prior to July 2004. Therefore, all of the veteran's records of treatment from the Togus VAMC since his discharge from service should be requested, to included any retired records. Finally, during the pendency of this appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) issued a decision in the consolidated appeal of Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), which held that the VCAA notice requirements of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) apply to all five elements of a service connection claim, including the degree of disability and the effective date of an award. In the present appeal, the appellant was provided with notice of what type of information and evidence was needed to substantiate his claim for service connection, but he was not provided with notice of the type of evidence necessary to establish a disability rating or effective date for the disability on appeal. Thus, on remand the RO/AMC should provide corrective notice. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Please send the veteran a corrective VCAA notice under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), that advises the veteran that a disability rating and effective date will be assigned if service connection is awarded, to include an explanation as to the information or evidence needed to establish a disability rating and effective date for the claims on appeal, as outlined by the Court in Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). 2. Inform the veteran of the unavailability of his service treatment and personnel records and the possibility that they were destroyed in the fire at NPRC. Ask him to provide dates (months and year) of his service in Korea and his unit of assignment at the time, as well as any proof of service in Korea he may have, such as the Korean Service Medal. 3. If the veteran provides sufficient information concerning the dates of Korean service and his unit of assignment, attempt to verify that his unit was stationed in Korea during winter months through official sources, such as JSRRC. 4. Obtain all records of treatment, which are not duplicates of those in the claims file, from the VAMC in Togus, Maine since the veteran's discharge from service. 5. Following completion of the above, the record should again be reviewed to determine whether the veteran's claim may be granted. If not, he should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be provided an opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. 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). _________________________________________________ K. A. BANFIELD 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).