Citation Nr: 1321007 Decision Date: 06/28/13 Archive Date: 07/05/13 DOCKET NO. 04-13 617 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Portland, Oregon THE ISSUE 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability (back disability). 2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include schizophrenia. REPRESENTATION Appellant (the Veteran) is represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Cramp, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from October 1978 to October 1981. He had additional subsequent service in the Army Reserves. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2010 Memorandum Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). The appeal originates from an August 2003 rating decision of the RO in Seattle, Washington, and from a March 2005 rating decision of the RO in Portland, Oregon. Original jurisdiction over the claims file resides with the RO in Portland, Oregon. In September 2007, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge sitting at the RO. A copy of the transcript of that hearing is of record. In a letter dated in May 2012, the Board notified the Veteran that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the hearing had retired and was no longer employed by the Board. The Board indicated that, by law, the Veteran must be given the opportunity for another hearing. He was informed that if he did not respond within 30 days, the Board would proceed with its review of his case. The Veteran did not respond to the letter, and it is concluded that he does not desire another hearing. This matter was previously before the Board and adjudicated in a decision dated in January 2008, in which the Board denied reopening of service connection for the claimed lumbar spine disability and psychiatric disability. The Veteran appealed that decision to the CAVC. In a Memorandum Decision dated in January 2010, the CAVC vacated the Board's January 2008 decision and remanded these issues to the Board for additional development as specified in the Memorandum Decision. In August 2010 and July 2012, the Board remanded these issues to the RO for additional evidentiary development. The appeal has since been returned to the Board for further appellate action. The Board notes that the January 2008 Board decision treated a February 1997 RO decision as the last final denial of service connection for a lumbar spine disability. However, a later March 2003 RO decision denied an application to reopen the claim. The determination as to reopening is based on evidence received since the last disallowance of the claim on any basis, not only since the claim was last disallowed on the merits. See Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273, 282-3 (1996), overruled on another basis by Hodge v. West 155 F.3d. 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Although the RO reopened the claim for service connection for a lumbar spine disability and adjudicated the claim on the merits, the Board must first examine whether the evidence warrants reopening the claim. This is significant to the Board because the preliminary question of whether a previously denied claim should be reopened is a jurisdictional matter that must be addressed before the Board may consider the underlying claim on its merits. See Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the claim on a de novo basis in the absence of a finding that new and material evidence has been submitted). The Board received additional records from the RO after certification of the appeal to the Board. Those records consist of copies of Army Reserve pay records from November 1982 to December 1983. The Board finds that these records are not relevant to any matter on appeal. The records simply show that the Veteran received pay during this period for his service in the Army Reserves. As the records are not relevant, it is not necessary to refer them to the RO for initial consideration. In reviewing this case the Board has not only reviewed the Veteran's physical claims file, but also his file on the "Virtual VA" system to insure a total review of the evidence. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In an unappealed March 2003 rating decision, the RO denied reopening of claims seeking service connection for a lumbar spine disability and an acquired psychiatric disability. 2. Regarding the claim seeking service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, the evidence received subsequent to the March 2003 rating decision does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim; it is cumulative and redundant of evidence already of record; and it does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 3. Regarding the claim seeking service connection for a lumbar spine disability, the evidence received subsequent to the March 2003 rating decision does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim; it is cumulative and redundant of evidence already of record; and it does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for reopening the claim seeking service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5108, 7104 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156, 3.159 (2012). 2. The criteria for reopening the claim seeking service connection for a lumbar spine disability are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5108, 7104 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156, 3.159 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Applications to Reopen In a February 1997 rating decision, the RO denied a claim seeking service connection for a lumbar spine disability and a claim seeking service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. The Veteran initiated an appeal as to the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability; however, he did not perfect the appeal following the issuance of a statement of the case. In a March 2003 decision, the RO denied reopening of both claims. At the time of the March 2003 decision, the evidence of record consisted of the Veteran's service treatment records, post service treatment records, a VA examination report dated in October 1996, and the Veteran's assertions regarding each claim. The Veteran's assertions regarding his psychiatric claim were that symptoms of a psychiatric disability began in service or shortly after service. In his initial July 1996 claim, the Veteran asserted that he was first treated for and diagnosed with schizophrenia in December 1985. In his February 1998 notice of disagreement, the Veteran reported that he underwent psychiatric evaluation while in the service at Fort Lewis in 1980 regarding hallucinations he was having. He reported that he was seen at the clinic in Fort Jackson in 1983-1984 while on active duty for training. In a March 2002 account, the Veteran reported that he was treated in 1979-81 at Fort Lewis for hallucinations involving being attacked by coyotes. In a May 2002 letter, the Veteran reported that he had been referred to a psychiatrist in 1980 or 1981 after a complaint of being harassed by a coyote. As reported by the Veteran: "I was delusional." He also reported, "I thought I was seeing a psychiatrist, but I may have been seen by a general practitioner." He reported that, shortly after leaving service, in 1982, he was seen by a psychiatrist at Dominican Hospital. Regarding the lumbar spine claim, the Veteran reported on his July 1996 claim that he fell and chipped his tailbone and was suffering low back pain from 1981 to 1996. July 1993 records from the Dominican Hospital revealed the Veteran's account that he had been shot in the lower back in the Army and had a "chipped off" tailbone. In April 1994, the Veteran reported that he had a gunshot wound to the back in 1980. On a November 1994 VA Domiciliary admission examination, the Veteran reported that he injured his tailbone in a truck accident in the Army. On a VA examination of the spine in October 1996, the Veteran reported that he hurt his tailbone on a mortar tube in 1980. In a March 2002 account, the Veteran reported that he incurred a chipped tailbone from a truck accident. At the time of the March 2003 decision, the service treatment records showed that, in September 1980, the Veteran complained of upper back pain and reported that he was run over while playing softball three days prior. He reported he did not have a history of back problems. The assessment was possible bruised ribs or bruised back muscle. Despite seeking treatment for various other physical complaints, the Veteran never again complained of back symptoms during the remainder of his service. Service treatment records were before the RO in March 2003 and revealed that the Veteran was treated in September 1980 for bites to both hands and arms from a coyote. The Veteran reported that he had been camping at Write Lake when he surprised a coyote. The examiner found superficial lacerations, partially healed, on both hands. The assessment was dog bites, doubt coyote. A rabies series was considered, but not recommended. Service treatment records revealed no treatment in service for psychiatric complaints. The Veteran signed a statement in August 1981 indicating that he did not desire a separation examination. Thus, the evidence of record in March 2003 demonstrated a muscle injury of the back in service with no chronic symptoms in service, and no psychiatric disease or injury either reported or found. At the time of the March 2003 decision, post service treatment records showed that initial diagnosis of schizophrenia was in December 1985. It was noted that this was the first psychiatric admission for him. Thus, the post-service evidence showed initial diagnosis of a psychosis more than one year after service and no continuity of symptomatology of a psychosis. At the time of the March 2003 decision, July 1993 records from the Dominican Hospital revealed the Veteran's account of having chronic low back pain off and on for 12 years, worse since 1988. The diagnosis was lumbar sprain, chronic sacral pain, and arthritis. In April 1994, the Veteran was treated for complaint of chronic low back pain. The diagnosis was low back pain. On a VA examination of the spine in October 1996, the Veteran reported an occasional low back ache. The diagnosis was low back pain. Reopening of each claim was denied by the RO in March 2003. Regarding the psychiatric disability, the evidence established a current diagnosis, but did not establish an injury or disease in service, continuity of symptomatology of a psychosis after service, or manifestation of psychosis within one year of service. The evidence also did not relate any psychiatric diagnosis to service. Regarding the lumbar spine disability, the evidence established a current chronic diagnosis and an injury in service; however, the evidence did not establish any manifestation of arthritis within a year of service separation or continuity of arthritis symptomatology after service. The evidence also did not relate any lumbar spine disability to service. Although notified of the RO's decision and of his right to appeal, the Veteran did not initiate an appeal of the March 2003 decision (see 38 C.F.R. § 20.200 (2012)). At any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). In this case, additional, service records were obtained as a result of the Board's July 2012 remand. However, these records contained a duplicate copy of the induction examination, which had already been considered, and several pages of service personnel records, which did not pertain to any service connection element of either claim. As the records are not relevant to the matters under consideration, these additional service records do not require reconsideration of either claim. In addition to reconsideration of a claim based on relevant official service department records, VA may reopen a claim that has been previously denied if new and material evidence is submitted by or on behalf of a veteran. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Where new and material evidence is received prior to the expiration of the appeal period, or prior to the appellate decision if a timely appeal has been filed, it will be considered as having been filed in connection with the claim which was pending at the beginning of the appeal period. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. Here, the Veteran requested to have the previously denied claim for service connection for a lumbar spine disability reopened in March 2003, within weeks of receiving the prior denial. As noted above, this was not an appeal of the March 2003 decision. The letter, signed and submitted by the Veteran's accredited representative, was titled "reopen claim/service connection", and noted that the Veteran was submitting an updated personal statement requesting service connection for a low back injury. The Board makes the following finding of fact based on the evidence of this case: based on the clear evidence at this time, the Veteran was requesting to reopen his claim, not appealing the prior denial. There is no ambiguity. In Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242 (2010), the Court vacated and remanded an earlier effective date claim (not at issue in this case) because the Board did not discuss the application of § 3.156(b) in its decision, but instead focused on the question of whether statements submitted within the appeal period following a rating decision satisfied 38 C.F.R. § 20.201 and were notices of disagreement. Buie, Vet. App. at 252. Essentially, the Court indicated that, because the statements were submitted within one year of the corresponding RO decision, the Board should have considered whether the statements included the submission of new and material evidence. Id. In this case, it does not. The RO reconsidered the claim on the merits (as requested) and denied service connection in August 2003. The current appeal ensued regarding this issue (the back). In the VA Form 9 submitted to perfect the appeal of the denial of service connection for a lumbar spine disability, the Veteran noted a mental illness while in service. The RO interpreted this as an application to reopen service connection for a psychiatric disability. Reopening was denied in a March 2005 rating decision, and the current appeal ensued regarding that issue. Regarding applications for reopening filed on or after August 29, 2001, 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) defines "new" evidence as evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers and "material" evidence as evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last final denial of the claim(s) sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Furthermore, for purposes of the "new and material" analysis, the credibility of the evidence is presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 512-513 (1992). In Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 100 (2010), the CAVC held that 3.159(c)(4) does not require new and material evidence as to each previously unproven element of a claim for the claim to be reopened and the duty to provide an examination triggered. In a fact pattern where a prior denial was based on lack of current disability and nexus, the CAVC found that newly submitted evidence of a current disability was, in concert with evidence already of record establishing an injury in service, new and material and sufficient to reopen the claim and obtain an examination. Evidence received since the March 2003 decision includes VA treatment records, private treatment records, a VA examination report dated in March 2004, and additional assertions from the Veteran and his representative. The Veteran submitted additional evidence within weeks of the March 2003 denial. This evidence consisted of copies of psychiatric treatment records from Oregon State Hospital for schizophrenia. While received within one year of the March 2003 decision, this evidence is not new and material, as it does not address any unestablished fact necessary for service connection. While this evidence reveals treatment for schizophrenia, a diagnosis of schizophrenia had already been of record at the time of the March 2003 decision. The evidence does not address whether there were manifestations of schizophrenia within one year of service separation, continuity of schizophrenia symptomatology after service, or a relationship between schizophrenia, or any other psychiatric disability, and service. Additional statements from the Veteran were also received subsequent to the March 2003 decision. In a September 2003 letter, the Veteran again recounted his assertion that he hallucinated an attack by coyotes in the service and was seen by a psychiatrist. However, a more detailed account of this assertion was already of record in March 2003, as were the treatment records from a dog/coyote attack in service. The Veteran submitted a June 2003 letter from a psychiatric social worker at Oregon State Hospital. In this letter, the psychiatric social worker requested an evaluation for the Veteran "for disability due to a back injury he sustained in 1978 following a truck accident." On its face, this letter is not an opinion that purports to relate any specific disability to service, but simply recounts assertions the Veteran made to her. The Board presumes that the account is accurate; however, the account is substantially similar to accounts of record at the time of the March 2003 decision. The Veteran's hearing testimony was also added to the record subsequent to March 2003. While it was acknowledged that the hearing was for the purpose of addressing all of the appealed issues, the Veteran's representative stated that no additional evidence or testimony would be offered regarding the applications to reopen service connection for a psychiatric disability or a lumbar spine disability. Accordingly, this evidence is not pertinent to either claim and is not new and material evidence. On VA examination of the spine in March 2004, the Veteran reported that, in 1980 or 1981, he was in the back of a truck and the truck drove over a log. He claimed he was lying down at the time, and bounced up and came down on his tailbone on the spherical projection of a mortar, and was reportedly told that he fractured his tailbone. An X-ray in March 2004 showed that degenerative facet sclerosis may be present at L4 through S1, and it was noted that the Veteran reported a history of fractured coccyx, but this level was not well imaged on the X-ray. The examiner noted that, because the Veteran was in the state hospital and there was no evidence in the service medical records that he injured this area in service, repeat X-rays of the coccyx were not done. The examiner provided a diagnosis of fractured coccyx by history, but no evidence in the service medical records of this. The examiner noted that, other than subjective pain, there was no limitation of motion of the lower spine. The examiner indicated that, because the X-rays showed possible degenerative facet sclerosis at L4-S1, the Veteran most likely had "some arthritic changes in this area that may attribute to his complaints of pain." The Board finds that this report is not new and material evidence, as the examiner did not provide an opinion relating any current lumbar spine disability to service, relating the onset of arthritis to within a year of service separation, or establishing continuity of symptomatology of arthritis following service. The Veteran's assertion as to having injured his back on a mortar tube in a truck and having fractured his tailbone (coccyx) in service is substantially similar to assertions of record in March 2003. A diagnosis consistent with arthritic changes was also of record in March 2003. A December 2004 memorandum from the Veteran's representative indicated that the Veteran was submitting a photocopy of his service medical records in support of his claim for "service connection for hallucinations." The service treatment records submitted by the Veteran were duplicates of service treatment records previously of record, and included excerpts from April 1980 through September 1980, at which time the Veteran reported he had been bitten by a coyote or wild dog while camping. The duplicate copies of service records are manifestly cumulative and redundant evidence, and the Veteran's assertions regarding hallucinations of a coyote attack were of record and considered in the March 2003 decision. The Board received copies of military pay records subsequent to certification of the appeal to the Board. Those records reflect monthly payments to the Veteran from November 1982 to December 1983 for his service in the Army Reserves. Setting aside the fact that the requirements for substantiating a claim for service connection based on non-active duty service, such as in the Army Reserves, are different than the requirements for active duty service, as set out above, the initial diagnosis of schizophrenia was not until December 1985, and the initial diagnosis of lumbar arthritis was in July 1993. These pay records are not new and material evidence regarding either claim, as they do not address whether there were manifestations of schizophrenia within one year of separation from active duty service, they do not address continuity of schizophrenia symptomatology after service, and they do not address a relationship between schizophrenia or any other psychiatric disability, or a lumbar spine disability, and service. The fact of the Veteran's Army Reserve service has never been in dispute and is not determinative of any unestablished element of service connection regarding either issue. Moreover, as the records are not relevant to either issue, reconsideration of the claims is not required under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). In sum, the evidence received since the March 2003 denial of reopening of service connection for a lumbar spine disability and an acquired psychiatric disability, to the extent that it pertains to any unestablished fact necessary for service connection, is cumulative and redundant of evidence already of record and considered in the March 2003 decision. It is not new and material evidence, and reopening of service connection for a psychiatric disability is not warranted. The Board reiterates that it has not evaluated the credibility of any of the additional evidence received since the March 2003 rating decision. The credibility of this evidence is presumed. The decision that new and material evidence has not been received is based solely on how that evidence relates to the elements of service connection that were unestablished at the time of the March 2003 rating decision. The Board acknowledges the argument of the Veteran's representative in April 2013 that the Veteran has submitted new and material evidence consisting of his continued allegations that the conditions began in service. The representative is correct that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and experiences in service, and his assertions are presumed to be credible for the purposes of reopening. Nevertheless, as described above, the Veteran's assertions in regard to his applications to reopen are substantially and materially similar to assertions he made previously at the time of the March 2003 rating decision (they are simply his "continued allegations" that he has made both prior to and after the March 2003 rating action, they are not new). He is simply repeating his prior claims. These assertions are not new and material evidence. Under these circumstances, the Board must conclude that new and material evidence to reopen the claims seeking service connection for a psychiatric disability and a lumbar spine disability has not been received. As the Veteran has not fulfilled the threshold burden of submitting new and material evidence to reopen either of the finally disallowed claims, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable. See Annoni v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 463, 467 (1993). Duties to Notify and Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2011); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2012). The notice requirements of the VCAA require VA to notify the claimant of what information or evidence is necessary to substantiate the claim; what subset of the necessary information or evidence, if any, the claimant is to provide; and what subset of the necessary information or evidence, if any, VA will attempt to obtain. The Board notes that a "fourth element" of the notice requirement requesting the claimant to provide any evidence in the claimant's possession that pertains to the claim was removed from the language of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1). See 73 Fed. Reg. 23,353-356 (April 30, 2008). The CAVC issued a decision in the appeal of Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), which held that the 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. Those five elements include: (1) veteran status; (2) existence of a disability; (3) a connection between a veteran's service and the disability; (4) degree of disability; and (5) effective date of the disability. In this case, the Veteran submitted his application to reopen service connection for a lumbar spine disability in March 2003. He was sent a letter in June 2003 which advised him of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate the merits of a claim of service connection for a lumbar spine disability. The Veteran submitted his application to reopen service connection for a psychiatric disability in April 2004. He was sent a letter in January 2005 which advised him of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate the merits of the claim. A March 2006 letter advised him as to how disability ratings and effective dates were assigned in the event of a successful claim seeking service connection. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b). In January 2010, subsequent to the Board's denial of reopening of each issue in January 2008, the appeal was remanded by the CAVC so that the Board could address the CAVC's decision in Kent v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 1 (2006), which clarified VA's duty to notify in the context of claims to reopen. The CAVC held that VA must notify a claimant of the evidence and information that is necessary to reopen the claim and notify the claimant of the evidence and information that is necessary to establish entitlement to the underlying claim for the benefit that is being sought. To satisfy this requirement, VA is required to look at the bases for the denial in the prior decision and to provide the claimant with a notice letter that describes what evidence would be necessary to substantiate those elements required to establish service connection that were found insufficient in the previous denial. In August 2010, the Board remanded the appeal to the RO so that supplemental notice could be provided in compliance with the CAVC's holding in Kent, and with the details of the Memorandum Decision. The RO sent the Veteran a letter in September 2010 which addressed the specific notice elements identified in the Kent decision. The RO then readjudicated each issue in January 2012 and April 2013, finding that new and material evidence had not been received for either issue. The CAVC acknowledged in Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004) that where certain notice was not provided prior to the initial rating decision, the appropriate remedy is to provide content complying notice with proper subsequent VA process. Pelegrini, 18 Vet. App. at 120. The Court required Kent notice for the issues addressed above. The Board remanded this case in August 2010 to address the Court's concerns specifically, which were undertaken by the RO. Importantly, no other problems were cited by the Court with this case regarding these issues. Notwithstanding, the Board remanded once again to insure it had all pertinent records in July 2012. Another effort was undertaken to assist the Veteran in obtaining evidence in support of his claims, which was once again unsuccessful, with no indication of a back or psychiatric disability related to service more than 30 years ago. When conducting a hearing, a hearing officer - to include a Veterans Law Judge - must suggest that a claimant submit evidence on any issue material to substantiating the claim when the record is missing any evidence on that issue or when the testimony at the hearing raises an issue for which there is no evidence in the record. See Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488 (2010); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (2012). The hearing officer also must suggest the submission of evidence when testimony during the hearing indicates that it exists (or could be reduced to writing) but is not of record. Here, during the hearing, the Veteran's representative stated on the record at the outset of testimony that the Veteran had no additional evidence to submit regarding these claims, and that no testimony would be given regarding these claims. Here, while the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the September 2007 hearing did not identify evidence that was needed to reopen or substantiate either claim, in light of the Veteran's decision not to address these issues at the hearing, the Board finds that the Veteran, in essence, withdrew his request for a hearing with respect to these issues. The Board is also satisfied that VA has made reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records and evidence. Only certain aspects of the duty to assist under the VCAA apply to applications to reopen finally decided claims. In particular, paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 covering obtaining records from Federal sources, non-Federal sources, and service records. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1)-(3). See also Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 345 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (VA will perform document gathering assistance even before claim is reopened). Specifically, the information and evidence that has been associated with the claims file includes the Veteran's service treatment records, post-service VA and private treatment records, and the Veteran's written assertions. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159, a VA examination is not required prior to reopening a finally decided claim. As noted above, this appeal involves a remand by the Board for additional evidentiary development. A remand by the Board confers on the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). While substantial compliance is required, strict compliance is not. D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008) citing Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999). In this case, the RO substantially complied with the Board's August 2010 remand instructions by providing appropriate VCAA notice. The RO also requested records pertaining to the Veteran's Army Reserve service from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) and received a response that no records were available. In July 2012, the Board found that the RO did not comply with its instruction to obtain the Army Reserve records, as it had specified the Veteran's period of active duty, and not his period of Army Reserve service. The Board again remanded the appeal, instructing the RO to contact the NPRC, or other appropriate source, to verify the Veteran's reported service in the Army Reserves, and obtain copies of any treatment records from such Army Reserve service. In response to the RO's request, the NPRC verified the Veteran's service and provided all medical documents on file in August 2012. The Board finds that these actions substantially comply with the Board's remand instructions, and no corrective action is necessary. Given the response of the NPRC that it had sent all records, there is no reasonable possibility that any records are outstanding or that additional development action would prove fruitful. ORDER Reopening of the claim seeking service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include schizophrenia, is denied. Reopening of the claim seeking service connection for a lumbar spine disability is denied. ____________________________________________ JOHN J. CROWLEY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs