Citation Nr: 18142938
Decision Date: 10/17/18	Archive Date: 10/17/18

DOCKET NO. 16-27 179
DATE:	October 17, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a left pinky finger condition, claimed as pinky finger, is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for scar on the left pinky finger, to include as due to a left pinky finger condition, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
As a preliminary matter, the Veteran has submitted multiple statements contending that service connection is warranted for his pinky finger of the left hand and for scarring of the left pinky finger.  Although the Veteran initially filed a claim for the “4th digit,” the Board notes that the Veteran has consistently identified the finger as the left pinky finger, which is the 5th digit.  Accordingly, the Board has recharacterized the claims into service connection claims for a left pinky finger condition and a scar on the left pinky finger.  On remand, the Veteran should be allowed to submit additional arguments in support of or against this recharacterization.
Turning to the claims, the Board finds that remand is warranted.  A review of the claims files shows that service treatment records (STRs) are incomplete.  It appears that only STRs from 1991 have been associated with the claims file.  In May 2016, the Veteran was notified that further attempts to obtain the missing STRs would be futile and advised to submit any relevant documents in his possession.  In response, the Veteran submitted lay statements in support of his appeal and a photograph showing a splint on his left pinky finger during service.  In light of this, the Board finds that remand is warranted for an examination.  
On remand, the examiner should determine the nature and etiology of the claimed left pinky finger and scarring of the left pinky finger.  In doing so, the examiner should presume, for examination purposes only, that the Veteran’s contention that he was injured during bayonet training to be credible.  Consideration should additionally be given to private medical records showing that the Veteran was treated for a left pinky finger chip fracture and laceration in July 2009.  The examiner is requested to address the Veteran’s assertion that his service injury and the July 2009 injury involved different joints of the pinky finger, and that such was noted in a July 2009 radiology report.  See May 2016 Correspondence. 
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any left pinky finger condition and scarring of the left pinky finger.  
The examiner must opine whether the claimed disability is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including a claimed left pinky injury incurred during bayonet training with pugil sticks.
The examiner should comment on, to the extent possible, the Veteran’s assertion that his in-service injury and the July 2009 injury involved different joints of the pinky finger, and that the service injury was noted in a July 2009 radiology report.  
For purposes of the examination only, the examiner should presume that the Veteran’s contention that his left pinky was injured during bayonet training with pugil sticks, is credible.
 
K. J. ALIBRANDO
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	S. Vang, Associate Counsel