Citation Nr: 18145973
Decision Date: 10/30/18	Archive Date: 10/30/18

DOCKET NO. 15-23 173A
DATE:	October 30, 2018
REMANDED
Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for residual of an injury to the right side of the neck is remanded.
Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.
Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition caused by napalm is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches to include as secondary to service connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity is remanded.
Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for residuals of a jaw injury is remanded.
Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD prior to June 1, 2016 is remanded.
Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 1969 to May 1971.
With regard to the issue list above, the Board must remand the case back to the AOJ and has no discretion on the matter as the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 require that the AOJ issue a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) if additional pertinent evidence is received and the case has not yet been certified for appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 19.31.  The record shows that the AOJ received additional medical evidence in the form of VA treatment records and VA examinations after the latest SOC was issued in July 2015, but before the case was certified to the Board in August 2018.  Because the additional evidence contains medical evidence pertaining to the issues on appeal, a remand is required so that the AOJ can adjudicate these claims in light of the new evidence.  38 C.F.R. § 19.31.
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Contact the Veteran and request that he identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated him for his disabilities. The Veteran should be requested to sign any necessary authorization for release of medical records to VA, and appropriate steps should be made to obtain any identified records. 
Regardless of the Veteran’s response, VA treatment records should be collected from St. Louis, Missouri VA Medical Center and Memphis VA Medical Center along with all associated outpatient center and clinics facilities from June 1993 to September 2001 and July 2003 to August 2009, and July 2010 to June 2011; and from the Cincinnati, Ohio VA medical Center and all associated outpatient center and clinics from January 2018 to present. Any archived records should be retrieved from storage.
2. After completing the requested actions and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, if the benefits sought on appeal are denied, the Veteran must be furnished a supplemental statement of the case that considers all the evidence since the last statement of the case.
 
GAYLE STROMMEN
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Acosta