Citation Nr: 18148415
Decision Date: 11/07/18	Archive Date: 11/07/18

DOCKET NO. 16-39 376
DATE:	November 7, 2018
REMANDED
1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability.
2. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability.
INTRODUCTION
The Veteran served on active duty from May 1983 to February 1989.
These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia.
REASONS FOR REMAND
In order to satisfy VA’s duty to assist, the Board finds that a remand for additional development is necessary. Specifically, the AOJ must schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to ascertain the nature and etiological relationship between any current right and/or left knee disability and her active duty.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006); see also Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

These matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Request that the Veteran submit or identify any relevant evidence not already associated with the claims file.  Attempt to obtain any identified evidence.
2. Provide the Veteran with a VA examination regarding her claimed right and left knee disability.  Make the Veteran’s electronic claims file available to the examiner, and ensure that the examiner specifies in the report that it was contemporaneously reviewed.  All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported.  Any indicated special diagnostic tests that are deemed necessary for an accurate assessment must be conducted. The examiner should then provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that any found right and left knee disability was/were incurred in or due to her active duty. 
In so doing, the examiner must specifically consider and discuss the Veteran’s assertions regarding in-service events and injuries, as well as the lay statements of record regarding her post-service symptoms.
The examiner is advised that pain resulting in functional impairment is considered a disability for VA purposes even if that pain and functional impairment is not a diagnosable condition. 
All rendered opinions must be accompanied by a thorough rationale. 
3. After completing the above actions, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the paragraphs above, the claims must be re-adjudicated. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran.  After she has had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review.
 
T. REYNOLDS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Sean G. Pflugner, Counsel