Citation Nr: 1553645 Decision Date: 12/23/15 Archive Date: 12/30/15 DOCKET NO. 12-31 957 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boise, Idaho THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for headaches. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by dizziness and "fogginess," claimed as venous circulatory insufficiency. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and S. M. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Stepanick, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1975 to June 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2014 the Veteran testified at a Video Conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In January 2015, the Board remanded the current issues for further evidentiary development. The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND Although the Board regrets the additional delay, it finds that a remand is again needed prior to adjudication of the Veteran's claims. At the time of the Board's prior remand, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) were associated with his paper claims file. However, the paper claims file was subsequently converted into an electronic file, and it appears that the STRs were lost or misplaced at some point during that transition. The Board notes that the Veteran has not been notified of the status of his STRs and has not been afforded an opportunity to submit any copies he may have in his possession. On remand, the AOJ should attempt to locate the missing STRs, to include sending a request through official channels for STRS in case duplicate records exist at the appropriate record repository. If no records are available, the Veteran should be advised that his records are missing and afforded the opportunity to submit any relevant documentation he may have. After the Board's January 2015 remand, the AOJ requested VA examinations and medical opinions for each issue on appeal. A VA physician examined the Veteran in April 2015 and diagnosed him with degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, tension headaches, and vasovagal response with syncope, but declined to opine on whether those disabilities were related to service, noting that he was unable to review the Veteran's STRs. The Board notes that, although the Veteran's STRs now appear to be lost, prior review of those records revealed that they were negative for headaches or back pain, and that the Veteran denied recurrent back pain, dizziness, and frequent or severe headaches on his May 1976 separation medical history report. However, given the apparent unavailability of the STRs, the Board finds that the previously requested opinions should be sought on remand. Finally, the Board notes that treatment records were previously sought from a specific private physician, who the Veteran indicated had treated him for an extended period when he lived in Oregon, and who had replied in April 2011 that he had not treated the Veteran for "headaches" or "venous latter system problems"-the specific conditions the AOJ had identified in its records request. Given the specificity of the conditions referenced in the AOJ's prior request, and as the request also did not include any reference to treatment for a back condition, the Veteran should be afforded another opportunity to authorize VA to obtain all treatment records from that physician on remand. Updated VA treatment records should also be obtained. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make all efforts to re-associate the Veteran's STRs with the claims file, to including request the Veteran's STRs through official sources. All efforts should be documented in the claims file. If no records are available, the AOJ should notify the Veteran, afford him an opportunity to submit any copies he may have, and inform him of alternative sources for obtaining sufficient evidence to validate his claim (e.g., buddy statements, unit history searches, etc.). 2. Ask the Veteran to complete an authorization form with the full name of Dr. Kincade and the address of his treatment facility. After securing the necessary release, request all treatment records from that facility. In addition, obtain relevant VA treatment records dated from June 2015 to the present. If any requested records cannot be obtained, the Veteran and his representative should be notified of such. 3. Then, return the claims file to the physician who performed the April 2015 VA examinations, if available. If new examinations are deemed necessary, they should be scheduled. If the original examiner is not available, the file should be forwarded to another physician for review and to obtain the requested opinions. Following review of the claims file, the physician should provide an opinion whether the Veteran's degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, tension headaches, and/or vasovagal response with syncope are at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) related to service, including a 1976 incident during which the Veteran fainted or blacked out in the shower, fell, and hit his head, which, for the sake of argument, the physician may assume occurred. The physician should explain the medical basis for any conclusions reached. If an opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the physician should explain why rendering an opinion is not possible or feasible (e.g. lack of sufficient information/evidence, the limits of medical knowledge, etc.). 4. After completing the requested actions, and any additional action deemed warranted, the AOJ should readjudicate the claims on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. 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 2014). _________________________________________________ K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2014), 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) (2015).