Citation Nr: 1337032 Decision Date: 11/14/13 Archive Date: 11/26/13 DOCKET NO. 11-30 329 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral upper and lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as due to chemical exposure. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Daniel G. Krasnegor, Attorney at Law ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. Childers, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service duty from September 1967 to August 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO), in St. Louis, Missouri. In addition to the paper claims file, there is a Virtual VA paperless claims file associated with the Veteran's claim. A review of the documents in such file reveals that they are either duplicative of the evidence in the paper claims file or are irrelevant to the issue on appeal. The appeal is REMANDED to the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND Unfortunately, a 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 claim so that he 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, unless no reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(a) (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c), (d) (2013). In July 2010, the National Personnel Records Center advised that it was unable to locate the Veteran's service treatment records in its facility. However, it appears to the Board that a search for service personnel records has never been undertaken. See Cromer v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 215, 217-18 (2005), aff'd 455 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2006); cert. denied 127 S. Ct. 2265, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1093 (2007) (regarding VA's heightened duty to assist where service treatment records are missing). A request has also not been made for unit records of the 275th Chemical Unit located at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and at Wolfgang Germany. See Veteran's August 2011 Statement in Support of Claim (VA Form 21-4138). Additionally, in the December 2009 Veteran's Application For Compensation Or Pension (VA Form 21-526) the Veteran reported that he had been treated by the "JC VAMC" since 1970. However, there is no indication that VA treatment records dating from 1970 have been requested. In view of VA's heightened duty to assist where service treatment records are missing, remand for further attempts to obtain alternate military records (including the Veteran's service personnel records and remote VA treatment records) is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). Finally, as this matter is being remanded for the reasons set forth above, any additional VA treatment records of the Veteran for his asserted disability should also be obtained. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(b), (c); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (VA medical records are in constructive possession of the agency, and must be obtained if the material could be determinative of the claim). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO shall associate, with the claims file, all of the Veteran's VA medical records (including virtual/electronic records) dating from 1970 to November 2008; and after August 2011. Any additional pertinent private treatment records identified by the Veteran during the course of the remand should also be obtained, following the receipt of any necessary authorizations from the Veteran. If no records are found, notify the Veteran and his representative in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. The RO shall contact the appropriate service department/agency for unit history records of the 275th Chemical Detachment Unit stationed at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and at Wolfgang Germany, from September 1967 to August 1969. 3. The RO shall request a complete copy of the Veteran's Official Military Personnel File and associate it with the claims file. 4. The RO 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 shall be undertaken prior to further claim adjudication. 5. The RO will then readjudicate the Veteran's claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his 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 he is so informed. He has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the RO. 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ DEMETRIOS G. ORFANOUDIS Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals 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. 2012).