Citation Nr: 1007635 Decision Date: 03/01/10 Archive Date: 03/11/10 DOCKET NO. 00-09 408A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for polyarthralgia, claimed as arthritis or joint pain. 2. Entitlement to service connection for asthma. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. Jivens-McRae, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1980 to March 1985. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 1998 rating decision, which denied service connection for polyarthralgia, claimed as arthritis or joint pain and service connection for asthma. The Board remanded the instant claim in November 2006 for further development. 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 Unfortunately, another remand is required in this case. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claims so that she is afforded every possible consideration. VA has a duty to make reasonable efforts to assist the claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claim for the benefit sought, unless no reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(a) (West 2002 & Supp. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c), (d) (2008). The Veteran contends, in essence, that service connection is warranted for polyarthralgia, claimed as arthritis and joint pain, and asthma, based upon service incurrence. She maintains that she was injured in service during an automobile accident and has continued to have joint pain since that time. She also claims that as a result of chemical exposure to mustard gas, in service, she is presently prescribed five different asthma medications. A review of the record reveals that these claims were remanded previously in November 2006. The claims file (which had been rebuilt) and the evidence of record was not complete. It was noted that the Veteran had not only been treated in service, but that she had been treated immediately after service in 1985 as a dependent of her husband at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) and Bethesda Naval Medical Center. At that time, she had been treated under the name of M. M-C. A search initiated by the RO/AMC with the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) was performed under a different name (M. M-I.) resulting in no records located. Moreover, it was also noted that according to procedures established by VA, all information requests for military personnel and medical information/records should be initiated through the Personnel Information Exchange System (PIES). It was noted that the records were sought under the Veteran's Social Security number. Unfortunately, at the time of her treatment, she was not treated as a Veteran but as a dependent. Those records would be located under her former husband's social security number. This search has not been performed. Since those records appear to be for treatment in close proximity to the Veteran's release from active duty, they are important to the instant claim. Therefore, in order to give the Veteran every opportunity to fully prosecute her claims and to provide her with the duty to assist, this case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO/AMC shall endeavor to obtain the Veteran's medical records from March 1985 to December 1985 as a dependent of R. L. C., for treatment at the WRAMC and Bethesda Naval Medical Center. The record search should be initiated under the Veteran's former husband's Social Security number through the PIES system. If those records are located, they should be associated with the Veteran's claims file. If they are not located, the claims file should so reflect that the attempt was unsuccessful under R. L. C.'s Social Security number. 2. If, and only if the above noted search is fruitful and records from March 1985 to December 1985 provide medical evidence of treatment for polyarthralgia, claimed as arthritis or joint pain, and/or asthma during this period, the RO/AMC shall forward the records for review by the examiners who provided July 2009 VA orthopedic and pulmonary opinions. If those examiners are no longer available, the Veteran should undergo additional VA examinations. The orthopedic examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has polyarthralgia/arthritis of the joints as a result of her period of active service, and the examiner conducting the pulmonary examination should give an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has asthma which was incurred as a result of her period of active service. In doing so, the examiner should acknowledge the Veteran's report of a continuity of symptomatology. Any opinions expressed must be accompanied by a complete rationale. 3. The RO/AMC will then review the Veteran's claims file and ensure that the foregoing development actions have been conducted and completed in full, and that no other notification or development action, in addition to those directed above, is required. If further action is required, it should be undertaken prior to further claims adjudication. 4. The RO/AMC will then readjudicate the Veteran's claims. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and her representative should be provided with a Supplemental Statement of the Case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, if appropriate, the case is to be returned to the Board, following applicable appellate procedure. The Veteran need take no action until she is so informed. She 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). The purposes of this remand are to obtain additional information and comply with all due process considerations. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of this claim as a result of this action. 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. 2009). _________________________________________________ DEMETRIOS G. ORFANOUDIS 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).