Citation Nr: 18151890 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/20/18 DOCKET NO. 15-16 582 DATE: November 20, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory condition, claimed as bronchial asthma as due to exposure to asbestos. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral lower extremity disability. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as anxiety. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service with the Navy from August 1961 to April 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which denied reopening entitlement to service connection for atopic dermatitis and for chronic fatigue syndrome. Jurisdiction over this case was subsequently transferred to the RO in Reno, Nevada. In July 2018, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a Travel Board hearing. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the record. The Board notes that the claim for entitlement to service connection for thyroid cancer is based on alleged exposure to an herbicide agent in the offshore waters within the legally recognized limits of the Republic of Vietnam, and is thus subject to a stay of adjudication pending the ruling of Procopio v. Wilkie, No. 17-1821 (U.S. Fed Cir.). See Board Chairman’s Memorandum, No. 01-18-15 (October 22, 2018). Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability; service connection for a respiratory condition, claimed as bronchial asthma as due to asbestos exposure; service connection for a bilateral lower extremity disability; service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as anxiety. The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 requires that VA make reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records that the claimant has adequately identified and authorized the VA to obtain. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012). Upon review of all the evidence of record, the Board notes that medical treatment records dated after December 2014 have not been associated with the claims file. Within a July 2018 Travel Board hearing, it appears that the Veteran is no longer seeking treatment through a VA medical center, but rather is seeking private treatment for his claimed disabilities. The Board finds that remand is necessary to update the claims file with all outstanding medical treatment records to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claims, especially in the case where it is unclear whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis for many of the claims on appeal. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and determine whether he is currently seeking VA medical care, and if so, obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding VA treatment records dated after December 2014. Any necessary authorization should be obtained, to include any release that is required from the Veteran. All attempts to obtain these records should be documented in the claims file. If any of the requested records are unavailable and it is determined that further attempts to obtain those records would be futile, such should be noted in a formal finding of unavailability that is associated with the record and the Veteran and his representative should be so notified. 2. Contact the Veteran and determine where he is currently seeking private medical care. Obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding private treatment records from the Veteran’s current private treatment provider(s). Any necessary authorization should be obtained, to include any release that is required from the Veteran. All attempts to obtain these records should be documented in the claims file. If the records are determined to be unavailable, that should be noted in the record. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, notify the Veteran and his representative, and allow him the opportunity to provide such records. 3. After all development has been completed, the AOJ should review the claims again based on the additional evidence. If the benefits sought are not granted, the AOJ should furnish the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case, and should give the Veteran a reasonable opportunity to respond before returning the record to the Board for further review. K. PARAKKAL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. R. Woodarek, Associate Counsel