Citation Nr: 18145520 Decision Date: 10/29/18 Archive Date: 10/29/18 DOCKET NO. 14-36 596 DATE: October 29, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2017). This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the June 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. This matter was previously before the Board in April 2018 and was remanded for further development. The Veteran had active military service from December 1972 to December 1974. A request for information form dated in May 1975 indicates he had six months of active duty for training from August 30, 1971, to February 25, 1972. However, on his October 2014 Formal Appeal to the Board, the Veteran stated that he served in the Marine Corps from August 1971 to August 1983. Additionally, the Veteran’s service treatment records note that the Veteran was involved with the Marine Corps Reserve in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma following the Veteran’s period of active military service. The file includes a service record showing promotions in 1976 and 1977, and other somewhat illegible records referencing dates in 1980, 1981 and 1982. Another record indicates discharge on August 25, 1983. However, it does not appear that all of the Veteran’s reserve military service records have been requested and/or associated with the Veteran’s claims file. In particular, the treatment records from after 1974 are generally not of record. Therefore, a remand is warranted to obtain these records. Additionally, the record reflects that the Veteran did not appear at his last scheduled VA examination. However, it is not clear whether the Veteran was notified of the examination date and time. Therefore, while this matter is being remanded, a VA examination should be scheduled to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s back disability. Since the claims file is being remanded, it should be updated to include any outstanding VA treatment records. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate those documents with the Veteran’s claims file. 2. The RO should verify all periods of reserve service ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA, and should obtain the Veteran’s outstanding reserve (including any existing National Guard) service treatment and personnel records. All efforts to obtain these records must be documented in the claims file and attempts to obtain these records must be continued to be made until the records are received or until it is determined that the records do not exist or that further attempt to obtain them would be futile. If the AOJ is unable to obtain these records, a Memorandum of Formal Finding of Unavailability of Records must be prepared and associated with the record. Additionally, the Veteran and his representative must be informed of such in compliance with VA regulation. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to provide an opinion as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s back disability that has been present during the period on appeal. After reviewing the record, to include the Veteran’s lay testimony stating that he consistently lifted heavy equipment throughout his military service, the examiner is asked to address the following: Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater), that the Veteran’s back disability, was caused by service, or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s military service? All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained and an adequate rationale for any conclusions reached must be provided. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the medical professional should state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. (Continued on the next page)   4. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Mountford, Associate Counsel