Citation Nr: 18150220 Decision Date: 11/14/18 Archive Date: 11/14/18 DOCKET NO. 12-17 703 DATE: November 14, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral defective hearing is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for heart disease, to include ischemic heart disease and/or congestive heart failure, due to exposure to an herbicide agent, to include Agent Orange, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder, due to exposure to an herbicide agent, to include Agent Orange, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from December 1967 to July 1969. In February 2013, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript has been associated with the claims file. The claims file contains an August 2018 VA Form 21-22a, for the appointment of an individual as the Veteran’s representative, stating Monica Renteria is appointed as an individual providing representation under 38 C.F.R. § 14.630 (2017). The Board accepts that Ms. Renteria is the intended representative of the Veteran. However, at present her representation cannot be formally validated. Although the Form 21-22a is dated and signed by the Veteran, it has not been signed by Ms. Renteria. Therefore, she should submit a new Form 21-22a, with the Veteran’s signature, the date he signed, her signature, and the date she signed. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral defective hearing. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. 3. Entitlement to service connection for heart disease, to include ischemic heart disease and/or congestive heart failure, due to exposure to an herbicide agent, to include Agent Orange. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder, due to exposure to an herbicide agent, to include Agent Orange. In response to the Board’s directives in its January 2015 remand, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ), in a letter dated June 29, 2015, requested from the State Adjutants General copies of documentation pertaining to the Veteran’s service in the Oklahoma and Kansas National Guards, to include all physical examinations, with entrance and separation examinations; all military service medical treatment records, line of duty determinations due to injuries; and verification of periods of service, showing which dates are active duty and which are active duty for training. The claims file also contains a photocopy of the original June 2015 request letter, with a handwritten note at the top stating: “No record found. 07/07/15. ML.” The immediate question which arises is whether “ML” works at the office of the State Adjutants General and is responding for it or whether he or she works at the AOJ and is simply noting by hand the response which, presumably, was received by some means from the office of the State Adjutants General. The Board has no way of knowing. As it is, the claims file has some Military Personnel Records pertaining to Guard and Reserve service, associated with the claims file within eight days of the June 2015 request letter. As it is, there are no medical records in those files and the Board again has no way of knowing exactly what could not be found, which entity produced these Guard and Reserve records, why the handwritten note states “no record found,” and, if unavailable, whether further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The handwritten note by “ML” is insufficient for the above reasons. A letter from the State Adjutants General, as the recipient of the June 2015 request letter, must be associated with the claims file, which states either the records were found and sent to the AOJ, records could not be found or only some records could be found and were sent or not sent, but such a statement must come from the recipient of the June 2015 request letter. The claims file contains a set of service treatment records, comprised of 25 pages, which pertain the period of 1965 to 1983, covering the Veteran’s National Guard service and Reserve service. However, the set does not contain service treatment records for the period of December 1967 to July 1969, the period of the Veteran’s active service for the United States Army and, most important, it does not contain his separation examination for this period of active service. Nothing in the record indicates that a request for the service treatment records for this specific period was made to the National Personnel Records Center. Whether or not the request was in fact ever made, the claims file does not contain a letter in response from the National Personnel Records Center confirming the records could not be found and it would be futile to continue the search. The Board needs to know either way. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran’s representative, Monica Renteria, inform her that, although the August 2018 Form 21-22a submitted either by her or by the Veteran is dated and signed by the Veteran, it has not been signed by Ms. Renteria. Direct her to submit a new Form 21-22a, with the Veteran’s signature, the date he signed, her signature, and the date she signed. 2. Contact by letter the State Adjutants General office at the address on the original request letter, dated June 29, 2015, make specific reference to the original request letter, repeat the request, and further state the AOJ requires a written response, which states the requested documents are available or not available; if not available, why this is so; whether further search would be futile; and whether or not the records might be obtained elsewhere, with the specific entity specified. Document the course of this inquiry and associate it with the file. 3. Contact by letter the National Personnel Records Center requesting the Veteran’s service treatment records for the period of his active service in the United States Army, being from December 1967 to July 1969, with particular attention to include the Veteran’s separation examination for this period. Further request that, if unavailable, the National Personnel Records Center respond by letter and confirm the records could not be found and it would be futile to continue the search. Document the course of this inquiry and associate it with the file.   4. After completing the above development and any other indicated development, verify that the requested development has been completed. If not undertake corrective action. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. Franke, Associate Counsel