Citation Nr: 18140328
Decision Date: 10/02/18	Archive Date: 10/02/18

DOCKET NO. 15-33 078
DATE:	October 2, 2018
REMANDED
Whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and, if so, whether the reopened claim should be granted is remanded.
Whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral shoulder disability and, if so, whether the reopened claim should be granted is remanded.
Whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability and, if so, whether the reopened claim should be granted is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a headache disorder is remanded.

INTRODUCTION
The Veteran served on active duty from December 1973 to December 1976.
REASONS FOR REMAND
Initially, the Board notes the RO has not obtained a complete copy of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) or official military personnel file (OMPF) for his period of active duty.  Additionally, the RO has not drafted a formal finding of unavailability for the record, indicating all efforts to obtain those records have been exhausted and additional attempts would be futile.  The RO initiated an M01 request to the Personnel Information Exchange System (PIES) in May 2004 in an attempt to obtain the Veteran’s STRs.  PIES provided a response the following month.  However, in November 2017 the Veteran submitted a psychiatric examination report, which was completed by his treating clinician.  In the course of the examination, the Veteran reported receiving psychiatric treatment for a “nervous breakdown” in service following a motor vehicle accident.  These records have not been obtained. 
The Board observes the Veteran’s complete OMPF has also not been requested or obtained.  As the potential exists that the Veteran’s missing STRs were mistakenly co-located with his OMPF, these records should be obtained.  Since the missing STRs may be determinative as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for the above-referenced disabilities, the Board finds all indicated development to obtain those records must be accomplished.  In sum, the Board finds additional indicated development must be done to obtain the Veteran’s STRs and OMPF, and if unavailable, a formal finding of unavailability should be completed and associated with the record. 
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions:
1.  Undertake appropriate development to the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC), or other appropriate source, to obtain the Veteran’s complete official military personnel file (OMPF) and service treatment records (STRs), to specifically include a PIES O50 request, to determine whether any additional service records are available.  If any requested records are deemed unavailable, the record should be annotated to reflect such and the Veteran notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e). 
2.  Undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the Veteran’s remaining issues on appeal, to include any more recent treatment records related to the claimed disabilities.  If any requested records are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect such and the Veteran notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e).
3.  Then, undertake any other indicated development and readjudicate the issues on appeal.  If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, furnish to the Veteran a supplemental statement of the case and afford him the requisite opportunity to respond.  Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate action.
 
T. REYNOLDS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	G. Fraser, Counsel