Citation Nr: 18136752
Decision Date: 09/19/18	Archive Date: 09/19/18

DOCKET NO. 16-22 555
DATE:	September 19, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral flat foot disability, claimed as fallen arches, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The appellant served in the Connecticut National Guard from June 1980 to August 1981.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Hartford, Connecticut.
In April 2016, the appellant requested a personal hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.  However, in his May 2016 VA Form 9, he indicated that he no longer desires a Board hearing.  As such, his request has been withdrawn.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e).
1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral flat foot disability, claimed as fallen arches, is remanded.
The appellant asserts entitlement to service connection for bilateral flat feet (claimed as ‘fallen arches’), which he contends were incurred during his military service.  See the appellant’s claim dated January 2015.
Service connection may be granted for any disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty while performing active military service.  Active military service includes active duty, any period of active duty for training during (ACDUTRA) which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in line of duty.  Service connection may also be granted for any disability resulting from an injury in the line of duty while performing inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) or for an acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest or a cerebrovascular accident occurring during such training.  38 U.S.C. § 101(24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a); see McManaway v. West, 13 Vet. App. 60, 67 (1999) (quoting Brooks v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 484, 485 (1993) (discussing 38 U.S.C. 101(24), 1131) (stating that the law “permits service connection for persons on inactive duty [training] only for injuries, not diseases, incurred or aggravated in line of duty”).
Significantly, although inquiries with the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), the Records Management Center (RMC), and ‘PIES NG1’ have been conducted, the appellant’s complete service treatment and personnel records from his National Guard service have not been associated with the record.  See the letter from the RO dated October 2015.  However, it does not appear that specific inquiry has been made with the Adjutant General of Connecticut or with the appellant’s National Guard unit.  In this regard, the dates of the appellant’s ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA service remain unclear.  Accordingly, the Board finds that this matter should be remanded for additional attempts to obtain the appellant’s complete service treatment and personnel records as to his service in the Army National Guard.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Contact the appropriate records custodian(s), including the appellant’s Army National Guard Unit and the Adjutant General of Connecticut, to obtain his complete service treatment and personnel records and to confirm the exact dates and status of the appellant’s service with the Army National Guard to include specific periods of ACDUTRA, INACDUTRA, or other service.  Any response should be associated with the appellant's claims file.  If said records cannot be obtained, provide the appellant with specific notice of the unavailability of these records pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)(1).  All such available records should be associated with the appellant's claims file.
 
K. Conner
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	K. K. Buckley, Counsel