Citation Nr: 18112992 Decision Date: 06/21/18 Archive Date: 06/20/18 DOCKET NO. 17-60 016 DATE: June 21, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from January 1962 to July 1962. The Veteran also had additional service in the Army National Guard. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. In May 2018, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. Claim for Service Connection – Back Disability A review of the record shows that the Veteran contends that he has a back disability that is as a result of physical exertion during his period of ACDUTRA. Specifically, the Veteran contends that his duties as a gunner, falling while wearing a back pack during service, and basic training resulted in his current back disability. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) shows that the Veteran was seen for complaints of back pain in June 1962. Additionally, the Veteran testified at a May 2018 Board hearing that he had continuing back pain during and since his active service. A review of the post-service treatment records indicate that the Veteran has complained of, and been treated for a back disability, to include corrective surgery in 1994. A review of the record shows the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in March 2017. At that time, the VA examiner diagnosed spinal fusion from 1993 and right lower extremity radiculopathy from 2017. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s current back disability was incurred in or caused by service. In this regard, the examiner noted that the Veteran did report to sick call with one complaint of back pain while in active service, but also noted that there were no records documenting back complaints in service. Moreover, the examiner stated that the Veteran wore a back brace, but not as due to back pain or a back condition, and that he did not seek treatment for a back disability until 1993. The Board finds the March 2017 VA opinion inadequate to decide the claim. In this regard, the VA examiner failed to adequately consider the lay statements of record regarding the Veteran’s back injury and subsequent pain while he was in active service. Further, the VA examiner’s opinion is internally inconsistent. In that regard, the examiner noted a back complaint in service, but then stated there were no complaints of back pain in service. As the opinion is not adequate, it is not a sufficient basis to support a denial of entitlement to service connection. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a new VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his back disability. Additionally, current treatment records should be identified and obtained before a decision is made in this case. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present back disability. The claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Based on the examination results and the review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that any currently present back disability is etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service. The examiner should consider the lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of the Veteran’s symptoms. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. Then, readjudicate the remaining issue on appeal. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mariah N. Sim, Associate Counsel