Citation Nr: 18153387 Decision Date: 11/27/18 Archive Date: 11/27/18 DOCKET NO. 15-02 921 DATE: November 27, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1992 to August 2013. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals Veteran on appeal from a February 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that additional evidence has been associated with the record since the issuance of the November 2014 statement of the case; however, as the Veteran’s claims are remanded herein, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) will have an opportunity to review the newly received evidence such that no prejudice results to her in the Board considering such evidence for the limited purpose of issuing a comprehensive and thorough remand. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disorder. 3. Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis. The Veteran contends that a bilateral wrist disorder and allergic rhinitis had their onset during active duty and, therefore, service connection for such disorders is warranted. In this regard, the Board notes that she retired in August 2013 and filed her original claim for service connection in September 2013. As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran has contended that her service treatment records (STRs) are incomplete as the Navy misplaced the original Volume I of her records. In this regard, a review of the STRs on file clearly reflect that Volume II of II, which includes treatment records dated from 2003 to 2013, laboratory and diagnostic test results, dental records, and imaging records, is of record. However, it does not appear that Volume I is on file as treatment records dated from 1992 to 2003 appear to be missing. Therefore, a remand is necessary in order to obtain such outstanding STRs and, if they are unavailable, to notify the Veteran of such fact and allow her the opportunity to submit any records in her possession. The STRs on file reflect treatment for seasonal allergies and a notation of allergic rhinitis as a chronic problem as recently as April 2013, which was noted to be due to dust mite, grass pollen, animals, pollen, and tree pollen in 2003 and 2004. Upon Medical Examination in February 2004, it was noted that the Veteran reported an onset of hives, sneezing, and nasal discharge seven years previously, which was diagnosed with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Such also noted a history of left wrist pain and numbness with an onset in 1996, which was diagnosed as carpal tunnel syndrome. In October 2007, the Veteran reported ongoing complaints related to allergies and carpal tunnel syndrome. An August 2010 record reflects that the Veteran underwent allergy sensitivity testing, which was positive for trees, grasses, weeds, molds, cat, dog, dust mite, and cockroach. The Veteran’s July 2013 separation examination reflects a report of allergic rhinitis and carpal tunnel of the wrist, with symptoms of tingling of the right and left fingers and light numbness of the right fingers. Consequently, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2013 in order to assess the nature and etiology of her claimed bilateral wrist disorders and allergic rhinitis. At such time, the examiner noted the Veteran’s report that her bilateral wrist disorder and allergic rhinitis had their onset on active duty in approximately 1996 and 1994, respectively; however, following an examination, he found that she did not have a diagnosis of such claimed conditions as there was no pathology to render a diagnosis. However, the examiner did not address the findings pertinent to the Veteran’s claimed bilateral wrist disorder or allergic rhinitis as documented in her STRs, to include as recently as July 2013, which was approximately three months prior to the submission of the Veteran’s claim for service connection and four months prior to the October 2013 VA examination. In this regard, in Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability prior to a claimant filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency. Consequently, a remand is necessary in order to afford the Veteran a new VA examination so as to determine whether she has had a current disability related to her claimed bilateral wrist disorder and/or allergic rhinitis at any point pertinent to the pendency of the claim. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s complete STRs dated from August 1993 through 2003 that are not of record. All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. After obtaining any outstanding STRs, afford the Veteran appropriate VA examinations so as to determine the nature and etiology of her claimed bilateral wrist disorder and allergic rhinitis. The record, to include a complete copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner, and all indicated tests and studies should be accomplished. (A) The examiner should identify all current disabilities associated with the Veteran’s bilateral wrists and allergic rhinitis at any point pertinent to the pendency of her September 2013 claim, even if currently asymptomatic or resolved. In this regard, he or she is advised that a disability for VA purposes is defined as the functional impairment of earning capacity, and need not be a definitive diagnosis. If the examiner finds that the Veteran does not have a current disability of the bilateral wrists and/or allergic rhinitis, he or she should reconcile such determination with the STRs that show complaints and findings referable to carpal tunnel syndrome and allergic rhinitis as recently as her July 2013 separation examination. (B) For each disability of the bilateral wrists and allergic rhinitis, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that such had its onset during, or is otherwise related to, the Veteran’s military service, to include the aforementioned documented in-service complaints, treatment, and diagnoses. A rationale should be provided for any opinion offered. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Timothy A. Campbell, Associate Counsel