Citation Nr: 18156749 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/10/18 DOCKET NO. 16-53 162 DATE: December 11, 2018 REMANDED Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hemorrhoids is remanded. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hepatitis to include a liver transplant (claimed liver cancer) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, other than posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for loss of tooth is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1973 to April 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from March 2015 and September 2015 rating decisions issued by RO. The issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD was denied in an August 2018 rating decision. The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement to this rating action in September 2018. The electronic record indicates that the AOJ is taking action on this issue. Although the matter is therefore within the Board’s jurisdiction, it has not been certified for appellate review and the Board will not now undertake review of the matter. If the matter is not resolved in the Veteran’s favor, the RO will certify this matter to the Board which will undertake appellate review of the RO’s action. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999) (holding that the Board’s jurisdiction is triggered by the timely filing of a notice of disagreement); 38 C.F.R. § 19.35 (stating that certification is for administrative purposes only and does not confer or deprive the Board of jurisdiction over an issue). This appeal was processed using the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) paperless claims processing system. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2017). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) (2012). 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Remand is required to make further attempt to obtain any outstanding service treatment records (STRs). 2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Remand is required to make further attempt to obtain any outstanding STRs. 3. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hemorrhoids is remanded. Remand is required to make further attempt to obtain any outstanding STRs. 4. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hepatitis to include a liver transplant (claimed liver cancer) is remanded. Remand is required to make further attempt to obtain any outstanding STRs. 5. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, other than PTSD, is remanded. Remand is required to make further attempt to obtain any outstanding STRs. 6. Entitlement to service connection for loss of tooth is remanded. Remand is required to make further attempt to obtain any outstanding STRs. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), Records Management Center (RMC), or other appropriate entity to secure any outstanding STRs. If these records are not available, or further attempts to secure them would be futile, obtain a statement from the NPRC or other relevant facility to this effect. IF THERE ARE ANY OUTSTANDING SERVICE TREATMENT RECORDS (STRs) THAT CANNOT BE LOCATED, MAKE A FORMAL FINDING AS TO THEIR UNAVAILABILITY. Inform the Veteran of the status of these records in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e) and advise him that alternative forms of evidence can be developed to substantiate the claim, including, but not limited to, “buddy certificates” and letters. Dixon v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 261, 263-264. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. Jackson, Counsel