Citation Nr: 1319196	
Decision Date: 06/12/13    Archive Date: 06/21/13

DOCKET NO.  09-22 072	)	DATE
	)
	)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Portland, Oregon

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for numbness and tingling of the left lower extremity.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for numbness and tingling of the right lower extremity.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for a disability of the cervical spine. 

4.  Entitlement to service connection for headaches, including as secondary to a disability of the cervical spine.

5.  Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, including as secondary to a disability of the cervical spine. 

6.  Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability, including as secondary to a disability of the cervical spine.

7.  Entitlement to service connection for numbness and tingling of the left upper extremity, including as secondary to a disability of the cervical spine.



8.  Entitlement to service connection for numbness and tingling of the right upper extremity, including as secondary to a disability of the cervical spine.

REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by:	Oregon Department of Veterans' Affairs

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Meawad, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from June 28, 1979, to August 10, 1979.  

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision in March 2008 of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In March 2011 and September 2012, the Board remanded the case for further development.

Since the requested development has not been completed, further action to ensure compliance with the remand directive is required.  Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center in Washington, DC.  



REMAND

In a previous remand, the Board directed that the in-patient records from June 28, 1979, to August 10, 1979, from the Naval Regional Medical Center in Orlando, Florida, be requested.  

In January 2013, the RO requested hospital records from the US Naval Air Regional Medical Center on Raymond St., Orlando, Florida.  In February 2013, a representative of the Orlando VA Medical Center stated that the Veteran was not a current Orlando VA patient and that the US Naval Air Regional Medical Center was no longer located at the Raymond St., which was now the site of the Orlando VA Medical Center.  In February 2013, a representative of a custodian of Federal records stated that the records requested from the Naval Regional Medical Center had not been retired to the National Personnel Records Center.  

In March 2013, VA made a formal finding that the records from the US Naval Air Regional Medical Center, in Orlando, Florida, were unavailable.  As a basis for this finding, the RO referenced the February 2013 letter incorrectly stating that it was a negative reply from the US Naval Air Regional Medical Center.  The February 2013 letter, however, was from the VA Medical Center in Orlando, Florida, which now occupies the facility that was formerly the location of the US Naval Air Regional Medical Center.  

As VA will make as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant service department records unless the records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain the records would be futile, further development under the duty to assist is needed.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Request in-patient records from June 28, 1979, to August 10, 1979, from the Naval Air Regional Medical Center that was once located in Orlando, Florida.  



If the Naval Air Regional Medical Center has been closed and the records retired and are not at the NPRC, then determine whether the records have been forwarded to a successor naval hospital, for example, in Jacksonville or Pensacola, Florida, and request the records from the appropriate facility. 

If no records are found and further efforts to obtain the records would be futile, notify the Veteran and his representative in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e).  

2.  On completion of the foregoing, adjudicate the claims.  If any benefit sought is denied, then provide the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and return the case to the Board.

The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded.  Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).

The claims 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. 2012).



_________________________________________________
George E. Guido Jr.
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) (2012).