Citation Nr: 18157622 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 05-24 839 DATE: December 13, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a forehead laceration is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right ulnar nerve laceration is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include as secondary to residuals of a forehead laceration is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1963 to March 1965 with an additional service in the United States Army Reserves. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a June 2004 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a March 2009 decision, the Board dismissed the Veteran’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). By order dated January 2010, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand, vacating the March 2009 decision and remanding the case for compliance with the terms of the Joint Motion for Remand. In a June 2010 decision, the Board reopened the issues and remanded the case for further development. The case was again remanded for additional development in February 2016. 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a forehead laceration. 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right ulnar nerve laceration. 3. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. The Veteran contends that his forehead and right ulnar nerve lacerations were incurred in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on his way home from a week-long period of active duty service for training (ACDUTRA) with the Army Reserve in October 1966. In June 2010, the Board found that the Veteran had reserve service on October 21, 1966, however, the record did not address his duty status on this date (active duty or inactive duty for training) and did not indicate how long this period of service lasted. As a result, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim, in part, to obtain a copy of his service personnel records and to verify his duty status on October 21, 1996, to include the specific date range of any active duty for training or inactive duty for training. In February 2016, the Board noted that the development it requested in June 2010 had not been sufficiently completed. It was noted that the Veteran’s service personnel records include documentation that on October 21, 1966, he was assigned to the United States Army Reserve-Ready. A September 1966 letter from the United States Army Administration Center also noted that October 21, 1966 was the effective date of change of strength accountability (EDCSA). The Board noted it was unclear whether this change in strength resulted in any period of active or inactive duty for training in October 1966. The case was again remanded to determine the Veteran’s duty status in October 1966. Following the February 2016 remand, the RO contacted the National Personnel Records Center to obtain a copy of the Veteran’s reserve records but was informed that the original records had already been sent to the Los Angeles Regional Office. Although the record contains service personnel records from the Veteran’s period of reserve service, these records do not indicate his duty status in October 1966. The record also indicates that the RO requested a search of Morning Reports to determine the Veteran’s training status, but was informed that the information could not be “reconstructed.” The record still does not indicate whether the Veteran was on active duty for training or inactive duty for training on October 21, 1966, and if so, how long this period of service lasted. In this capacity, the Board notes that a November 1966 treatment record indicates that the Veteran’s motor vehicle accident occurred on October 29, 1966, not October 21, 1966. Upon review, it does not appear that an attempt has been made to contact the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to verify the Veteran’s duty status through his Master Military Pay Account (MMPA). On Remand, the AOJ should attempt to obtain the Veteran’s MMPA if available. The Veteran’s claim for an acquired psychiatric claim is inextricably intertwined with his claim for residuals of a forehead laceration. The appropriate remedy where a pending claim is inextricably intertwined with a claim currently on appeal is to remand the claim on appeal pending adjudication. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Verify the dates of the Veteran’s ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA and any other type of Reserve service during October 1966 by contacting the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and requesting the Veteran’s Master Military Pay Account (MMPA). 2. After undertaking any additional development deemed appropriate, and giving the Veteran full opportunity to supplement the record, adjudicate the Veteran’s pending claim in light of any additional evidence added to the record. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded the applicable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Rachel Mamis