Citation Nr: 18153233 Decision Date: 11/27/18 Archive Date: 11/27/18 DOCKET NO. 16-50 248 DATE: November 27, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity shin splints is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity shin splints is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability, to include flat foot, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability, to include flat foot, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from October 1993 to October 1996 with additional service in the Army Reserve until June 2001. 1. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity shin splints is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity shin splints is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability, to include flat foot, is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability, to include flat foot, is remanded. In the Veteran’s October 2016 substantive appeal, he contended that his medical records would demonstrate that ankle and foot problems dated back to Advanced Infantry Training (AIT). To date, the Veteran’s service treatment records have not been located. The Veteran is competent to report in-service lower extremity problems and ongoing problems from service, although he is not necessarily competent to diagnose a specific ankle, foot, or shin disability, due to the medical complexity of such diagnoses. Given that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination for his bilateral foot, ankle, and shin claims and the above evidence, the Board finds that there is at least a suggestion of a relationship between his current problems and the Veteran’s service and that a VA examination is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the electronic claims file all VA treatment records for the Veteran from August 2016 to the present. 2. Even though the Records Management Center reported in July 2014 that service treatment records could not be found, in view of the elapsed time, importance to the appeal, and indications that the Veteran served in the Army Reserve from 1996 to 2001, an additional attempt to obtain these records from the appropriate archive and from the Veteran should be made and documented if the search remains unsuccessful. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination for his bilateral foot, ankle, and shin claims. The electronic claims file must be made available for review. After reviewing the file, obtaining a complete history from the Veteran, conducting a physical examination, and any other testing deemed necessary, the examiner should render an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that (i.e., a probability of 50 percent or greater) any diagnosed disability of the right or left foot, ankle, or shin was incurred in or is otherwise related to active service. In reaching that opinion, the examiner should note that the Veteran’s service treatment records have not been located. That said, he has reported in-service problems beginning in AIT that he relates to his current problems, which the examiner should deem credible in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean “within the realm of medical possibility.” Rather, it means that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of that conclusion as it is to find against it. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any opinion provided. 4. Thereafter, readjudicate the Veteran’s claims. If a complete grant of the benefits sought is not granted, issue a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) to the Veteran and his representative. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. J. Houbeck, Counsel