Citation Nr: 18145352
Decision Date: 10/26/18	Archive Date: 10/26/18

DOCKET NO. 13-32 736
DATE:	October 26, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent prior to February 6, 2018 and 20 percent thereafter for service-connected chronic lumbosacral strain with degenerative disc disease (“low back disability”) is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active military service from July 2002 to June 2006. 
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 
In December 2016, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing.  The transcript of the hearing is of record.  
By way of background, during the appeal period, a September 2013 rating decision found that the Veteran is entitled to a 10 percent disabling rating effective May 31, 2012 for his low back disability.  Then, in a January 2014 rating decision, VA found that there was clear and unmistakable error in the evaluation of the Veteran’s low back disability and retroactively increased the Veteran’s disabling rating to 10 percent effective June 24, 2006.  In September 2017, the Board remanded the issue for further evidentiary development.  In July 2018, the VA increased the Veteran’s low back disability rating to 20 percent, effective February 6, 2018.  
The Board’s review of the claims file reveals that further action on the claim of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent prior to February 6, 2018 and 20 percent thereafter for service-connected low back disability is needed as the Board finds that VA did not substantially comply with the September 2017 Board remand.  Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).  
Pursuant to the September 2017 remand, the RO did not undertake the appropriate development to obtain outstanding treatment records pertinent to the Veteran’s claim, to include treatment records and/or examination reports from the Elm Street Clinic of the Family Health Centers of San Diego in June 2013, and records from San Diego VAMC from June 2009 to December 2011.  The Board notes that in October 2017 the RO sent a correspondence asking the Veteran to submit VA Form 21-4142, Authorization to Disclose Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  See October 2017 Other.  However, a November 2017 contact with the Veteran lists a different address than the one used for the October 2017 correspondence.  See December 2017 VA 27-0820 Report of General Information.  VA did not send subsequent correspondence to the Veteran at this address.  As such, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to obtain the missing treatment records. 
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. The RO should ask the Veteran to identify any private testing and/or treatment records related to her back since June 2009.  The RO should undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding treatment records pertinent to the Veteran’s claim, to include treatment records and/or examination reports from the Elm Street Clinic of the Family Health Centers of San Diego in June 2013.
2. Obtain VA treatment records dated from June 2009 to April 2010 records, and August 2017 to the present.
3. The RO should ask the Veteran to clarify whether she underwent any examination in 2010 in conjunction with her attempt to reenlist on active duty.  If the Veteran indicates she did undergo a physical examination regarding her back, the AOJ should undertake appropriate development to obtain any records of that examination. 
 
 S. HENEKS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	P. Noh, Associate Counsel