Citation Nr: 18150535 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 09-11 086 DATE: November 15, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability (neck condition) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from December 1972 to May 1973, July 1975 to October 1976, April 2005 to September 2005, February 2006 to September 2006, and February 2010 to September 2010. He also had many additional periods of inactive service. In March 2011, the Veteran appeared and provided testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A hearing transcript is of record. This appeal has a long procedural history and has been before the Board previously. Most recently, in November 2013, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability. The Veteran timely appealed that Board decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In October 2015, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) seeking vacatur of the Board’s 2013 decision and a remand of the claim for action consistent with the JMR. Specifically, the JMR asked the Board to address the Veteran’s period of active duty service for training from February 2010 through September 2010, among other directives. Accordingly, in March 2016, the Board remanded this appeal for development consistent with the JMR. The Board finds that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) did not substantially comply with the Board’s 2016 remand directives for the following reasons. First, the AOJ did not comply with the 2016 remand directives regarding obtaining the Veteran’s service treatment records from his period of active duty for training from February to September 2010. The AOJ documented negative responses from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) and the Records Management Center (RMC). However, the AOJ made no subsequent attempts to request these service treatment records directly from the Oregon Army National Guard, contrary to the 2016 remand’s express instructions to do so. Second, the May 2018 VA medical opinion applied the incorrect legal standard and did not clearly address the questions presented in the 2016 remand. Specifically, although the AOJ’s examination request mirrored the language used in the 2016 remand, the examiner rephrased the questions in a very unclear manner and therefore did not adequately address the questions raised in this case. Moreover, the 2018 VA examiner’s opinion failed to specify which time periods the examiner was referencing when discussing the Veteran’s multiple, non-consecutive periods of active service, as well as his complex, lengthy medical history regarding his neck condition. Precision regarding the specific timeline of the Veteran’s pertinent medical history and service periods is especially critical here considering the factual and medical complexity of this case. In summary, another remand is required for substantial compliance with the 2016 remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).   The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request the Veteran’s service treatment records from his period of active duty for training from February to September 2010 directly from the Oregon Army National Guard. Document all requests and any negative responses. Notify the Veteran and his representative promptly of any negative responses. 2. Then, only after completing the development as instructed above, or determining no records are available, schedule a VA addendum medical opinion with a physician, given the medical complexity of this case. The examiner must answer the following questions and provide complete rationales for any opinions expressed. a) Does the evidence reflect the Veteran’s pre-existing cervical spine disability increased in severity during his period of active duty service for training from February 14, 2010 through September 30, 2010? b) If so, is there clear and unmistakable evidence that any increase in severity during this 2010 period of active service was due to the natural progression of his pre-existing cervical spine disability? When answering these questions, at all times, the examiner must specify all referenced dates when discussing the Veteran’s pertinent medical history and periods of active service. The examiner must note his or her review of the complete claims file, including the 2013 and 2018 VA medical opinions, and any 2010 service treatment records obtained per Instruction 1 above. If any opinion cannot be provided without mere speculation, then the examiner must explain why. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Janofsky, Associate Counsel