Citation Nr: 18156396
Decision Date: 12/11/18	Archive Date: 12/07/18

DOCKET NO. 15-17 101
DATE:	December 11, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder. 
Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disorder. 
Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder. 
Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder. 
Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disorder. 
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active service from August 1977 to August 1981 and from March 1982 to February 1983.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals on appeal from a December 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
VA is advised that the Veteran claimed non-service connected pension based on his "back, shoulder, and hip" in September 2001.  VA, in a September 26, 2001 letter misconstrued the claim as one for service-connected disability.  Notwithstanding this, it appears VA did not adjudicate the claim, either on a pension or disability basis, so referral is made to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction to adjudicate a pension claim. 
Remand is warranted for three reasons.
First, in October 2007, a VA physician diagnosed the Veteran with esotropia.  Three years later, a private physician treated the Veteran for double vision.  This treatment, when combined with treatment for impaired vision in service in October 1978, shows the Veteran merits a compensation examination.
Second, the Veteran's September 2011 claim form shows he began treatment for his eye disorder in 2002.  Remand is needed to attempt to obtain these records.
Third, the Veteran's September 2011 claim form shows he was treated for his left hip, left shoulder, and back at a medical center in "Glen Gen," West Virginia.  The undersigned presumes this means Glen Jean, West Virginia, but the undersigned cannot identify the name of the facility.  VA should ask the Veteran to clarify this on remand.  
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Attempt to obtain all VA treatment records for the Beckley, West Virginia facility from January 2002 to present.  Upload these in a single electronic file.
2. Ask the Veteran to identify the name of the facility he was treated at in Glen Jean, West Virginia, as indicated in his September 2011 claim form.  If the Veteran responds and provides the appropriate medical release, attempt to obtain these records.
3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his eye disorder.  The examiner should answer the following question:
Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability) the Veteran's eye disorder was incurred in or is etiologically related to service, to include, but not limited to, his in-service treatment in October 1978?  Why or why not?
 
KELLI A. KORDICH
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	M. Sopko, Counsel