Citation Nr: 18140215 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-27 718 DATE: October 2, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for lower back injury is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 2006 to December 2006, June 2007 to March 2008, and August 2009 to July 2010. The Veteran had additional service in the California Army National Guard. Entitlement to service connection for lower back injury is remanded. The Veteran contends in his substantive appeal (VA Form 9) that, “I went to the VA Lome Linda several times complaining of my back issues. I complained of my back issue at Lome Linda within one year of leaving [National Guard] service,” which was in June 2012. In this regard, in July 2012, the Veteran reported to a VA treating physician that he had a lower back injury in April 2012 during a training exercise while carrying a heavy load uphill. Essentially, the Veteran contends a low back injury incurred during a period of ACDUTRA. A July 2015 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) response indicated that all National Guard service treatment records had been provided, although his service treatment records do not reveal any treatment proximate to 2012. Nonetheless, the Veteran also provided several buddy statements corroborating the Veteran’s annual training back injury in 2012, which provides credible evidence of such injury. However, the Board finds it necessary to obtain his California Army National Guard retirement points history to confirm whether he had any periods of ACDUTRA and/or INACDUTRA during 2012. Moreover, the Veteran’s active duty service entrance examination report is not available, therefore, it cannot be concluded that there was evidence of a pre-existing condition noted at service entrance. Therefore, the presumption of soundness at service entry attaches. Also, the Veteran’s active duty service treatment records (STRs) note scoliosis of the back. The Board notes that the Veteran has complained of back and/or neck pain during active duty, such as in a February 2010 combat stress control, personal history questionnaire. The Board notes that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his low back condition. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). Therefore, a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran an examination. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain his California Army National Guard service personnel records through his discharge in July 2012. 2. Request the Veteran to provide a copy of any California Army National Guard service treatment records from 2012 that may detail his claimed low back injury. 3. Obtain a retirement points history for his California Army National Guard service through June 2012, to determine the Veteran’s periods of ACDUTRA and/or INACDUTRA. 4. Obtain and associate all outstanding VA treatment records with the claims file, particularly including from the VA Loma Linda Healthcare System dated prior to June 25, 2012, particularly including April to May 2012. 5. Contact the Veteran and request that he identify all private providers who have treated him for his low back condition. After obtaining authorization, obtain all outstanding records. If the records are unavailable, document the claims file and notify the Veteran in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 6. If any periods of ACDUTRA in April-May 2012 are confirmed after the above development, then schedule the Veteran for an examination to assess the nature and etiology of his back disability. The complete record, to include a copy of this remand and the claims folder, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place. (a.) Identify any diagnosed low back disability(ies). (b.) For each diagnosed back disability, is it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that such disability was incurred in or is otherwise related to active duty military service? (c.) For each diagnosed back disability, is it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that such disability was incurred in or is otherwise related to a period of claimed ACDUTRA training injury in approximately April-May 2012? The examiner is advised the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, he or she must provide a reason for doing so. The supporting rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. The examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements on the history of his lower back condition. BISWAJIT CHATTERJEE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Henry, Associate Counsel