Citation Nr: 18141014 Decision Date: 10/09/18 Archive Date: 10/09/18 DOCKET NO. 16-17 632 DATE: October 9, 2018 REMANDED ISSUES The claim for service connection for a heart condition is remanded. The claim for service connection for a seizure disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from June 1985 to June 1989. The Veteran also had service in the United States Army Reserve from June 1992 to November 1993, and the Army National Guard from November 1993 to June 2006. The claims for service connection for a heart condition and a seizure disorder are remanded. The Veteran asserts he has a heart disability and a seizure disorder related to injuries sustained during a period of qualifying service. Private treatment records from November 1994 indicate the Veteran was involved in a car accident in which he struck the back of his head. A CT scan taken shortly after the car accident revealed a major subarachnoid hemorrhage, and an angiogram demonstrated the Veteran had an aneurysm of the internal carotid artery. See November 1994 private treatment records. Additionally, a June 2007 VA neurology consult references private treatment records that indicate the Veteran had a history of mild heart attack in 1994. The Board notes that the Veteran was a member of the Massachusetts Army National Guard in 1994 when the car accident and the internal carotid artery aneurysm occurred; however, records verifying dates of service (i.e., active duty, active duty for training (ACDUTRA), and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA)) have not been obtained or associated with the file. Treatment records to substantiate the occurrence of a mild heart attack in 1994 have also not been obtained or associated with the file. To ensure due process of law and that VA has met its duty to assist, the Board finds that remand is necessary to obtain relevant service personnel and treatment records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The Board adds that in June and July 2007 VA treatment records, the Veteran reported the onset of seizures sometime between 2004 and 2005. In the June 2007 VA neurology consult, Dr. A.M. opined the Veteran’s seizures were secondary to the subarachnoid hemorrhage he sustained as a result of the internal carotid artery aneurysm in November 1994. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all documents pertaining to the Veteran’s service in the Army Reserve and Massachusetts Army National Guard. Verify all periods of active duty, active duty for training (ACDUTRA), and inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) dates in the Army Reserve from 1992 to 1993, and the Massachusetts Army National Guard from 1993 to 2006. If necessary, a request should be made to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. Additionally, obtain the Veteran’s complete service treatment records pertaining to his service in the Army Reserve from 1992 to 1993, and the Massachusetts Army National Guard from 1993 to 2006. Ask the Veteran to provide any pertinent private treatment records, such as those referenced in VA treatment records from his private neurologist, Dr. O.G. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 2. After the above development, determine the Veteran’s Reserve status (i.e., active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty for training) in 1994, to include the date he was involved in the car accident, and the date(s) when he sustained the internal carotid artery aneurysm and/or subarachnoid hemorrhage. If the Veteran was on active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty for training when the car accident, the internal carotid artery aneurysm and/or subarachnoid hemorrhage, or heart condition was incurred, obtain a medical opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s seizure disorder is related to any in-service disease, event, or injury, to include any heart or cerebrovascular condition in 1994. Any opinion expressed should be supplemented with a supporting medical explanation. (Continued on Next Page) 3. Readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Mask, Associate Counsel