Citation Nr: 18157053 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/11/18 DOCKET NO. 18-14 494 DATE: December 11, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection a right hip disability, to include arthritis, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant served on active duty in the United States Army from October 1955 to May 1958. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which denied the appellant’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability, to include arthritis. As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the appellant initially requested a hearing before the Board on this matter in a March 2018 Substantive Appeal. The appellant was scheduled for a videoconference hearing on May 11, 2018. In April 2018, VA received documentation indicating the appellant’s desire to cancel the hearing so that the case may proceed based on the evidence of record. Considering this, the Board deems the hearing request withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). The appellant contends that he injured his right hip while on active duty in Fairbanks, Alaska. He asserted in a May 2017 Statement in Support of Claim that he received x-rays at the time of the incident and was diagnosed with a “bruised bone.” In that statement he also relayed that his right hip has bothered him ever since this injury, causing swelling in his leg and ankle. In his January 2018 Notice of Disagreement, he further contended that he has had continuous pain in his right hip since his in-service injury. The Board notes that in June 2017, the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) indicated that the appellant’s service medical records had been destroyed in the 1973 fire at their facility. The NPRC was able to provide the appellant’s discharge orders which indicated that he was discharged for the convenience of the government and not by reason of physical disability. In June 2017, the appellant was notified that his records may have been destroyed in the fire, and that he should complete an NA Form 13055 to help in attempts to assemble his records from other sources. The appellant completed and returned that form in June 2017, stating that he served in the 2nd Division, 9th Infantry, stationed at Wainwright Air Force Base in Alaska. He also stated that his injury occurred in November 1956. In September 2017, the NPRC notified the RO that a more specific unit designation was necessary to make a search for the requested records. In October 2017, the RO sent the appellant a letter requesting further information on his unit assignment while in Alaska. There is no indication in the file that the appellant responded to this request. In November 2017, the appellant was sent another letter by the RO what gave him a list of other types of evidence he could use to “substitute” for his service treatment records. The NPRC made another attempt to obtain records in December 2017, but again were not able to produce the relevant service medical records. As the RO has established that the appellant’s service medical records are unavailable due to fire-related service, the Board bears a heightened obligation to explain its findings and conclusions, and to consider carefully the benefit of the doubt rule. See Allin v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 207, 214 (1994), citing O’Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). The appellant was afforded a VA examination in relation to this claim in January 2018. Diagnostic testing at the time determined that the appellant had arthritis of the right hip. The examiner noted at the time of the examination that the appellant reported falling on his hip in 1956 and that he had no subsequent treatment on the joint since. In rendering an opinion on the issue, the examiner found that it was not at least as likely as not that the appellant’s current right hip disability was related to his in-service right hip injury. However, in providing a rationale for this conclusion, the examiner provided a speculative opinion, which the Board finds inadequate. The examiner was “unable to objectively note chronicity to say if the currently diagnosed arthritis is a progression of the right hip condition or if it is from a new and separate condition.” While the examiner did check a box finding the disability not at least as likely as not related to service, the rationale here is inconclusive. The examiner also failed to account for the appellant’s lay reports of continuing right hip pain since his injury on active duty in providing a rationale. As this rationale is inadequate, the Board finds that remand is necessary for further development. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the appellant’s current right hip disability, to include arthritis, is at least as likely as not related to his reported in-service right hip injury which was diagnosed as a hip “bone bruise.” A rationale for the examiner’s conclusion must be provided. In providing the rationale, the examiner is requested to consider the relevant evidence of record, to include the appellant’s description of his in-service injury and subsequent symptomatology. The examiner is advised that although the appellant’s service medical records are unavailable due to a 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center, the appellant is competent to describe his in-service injury and subsequent symptoms. K. Conner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Kleponis, Associate Counsel