Citation Nr: 18157035 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/11/18 DOCKET NO. 17-13 041 DATE: December 11, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from September 1959 to June 1963. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a March 2017 Statement of Representative in Appealed Case, the Veteran’s representative wrote that the VA Form 9 submitted by the Veteran expressed a desire for a Travel Board hearing. A review of that document, as well as the remainder of the record, shows that is not the case. At no point did the Veteran request a hearing before a member of the Board. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for a neck disability. Remand is required to obtain outstanding private medical records and schedule a VA examination. In the February 2017 substantive appeal (via VA Form 9), the Veteran lamented that VA has not found his records and he speculated that whomever he talked to did not even try to find them. A review of the claims file shows the Veteran did not provided VA authorization to obtain his private medical records. Nonetheless, he has identified recent treatment by Dr. L.V. and implied prior treatment by other private physicians as well. E.g., August 2014 notice of disagreement and February 2017 VA Form 9. Accordingly, VA has been put on notice of the existence of such records and has a duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating the claim by making efforts to obtain them. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1). Additionally, the Board notes that a July 2014 VA examiner authored an etiological opinion that contained two alternative theories as to why the Veteran’s current condition was less likely than not related to his active service. The second of those theories was that the Veteran has no specific diagnosis for his neck disability because “cervicalgia” is a generalized term referring to pain in the neck that could be due to many different reasons. The examiner’s argument followed that the Veteran’s current condition cannot be related to what he had in service, in part, because his current condition may not be the same thing as what he had in service. The Board finds this line of reasoning to be wholly inadequate, and it fails to consider that, if different, the current condition could be a progression of what was noted during service. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. Any uncertainty as to current diagnosis may be resolved by providing the Veteran a complete examination. On remand, one should be scheduled. 38 C.F.R. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). To be clear, the Board’s finding of inadequacy in the July 2014 VA medical opinion only pertained to the second theory provided by the examiner. At this time, Board expresses no opinion on the first theory provided by the examiner. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to submit, or provide VA authorization to obtain, all non-VA treatment records related to his neck condition. This includes records from Dr. L.V., as well as from any other post-service medical treatment providers. If such records are not found, the claims file must be clearly documented to that effect and he should be notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. After the above development has been completed, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and etiology of his neck disability. The examiner must review the entire claims file, to include a copy of this REMAND, in conjunction with the examination. The examiner is to identify the Veteran’s current diagnosis or diagnoses. If cervicalgia is ruled out, an explanation should be provided. For each diagnosed disability, the examiner is asked to answer whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) it had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, the Veteran’s active service. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed. D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mike A. Sobiecki, Associate Counsel