Citation Nr: 19190857 Decision Date: 12/03/19 Archive Date: 12/03/19 DOCKET NO. 19-30 079 DATE: December 3, 2019 REMANDED Service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. Service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. Service connection for a low back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1954 to December 1957. The majority of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs), except for a portion of his military separation examination, were destroyed in a fire that occurred in 1973 at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), which is a military records repository. Given that his records were destroyed, through no fault of his, VA has a heightened obligation to explain findings and conclusions and to consider carefully the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. The Veteran contends that he injured his low back and ankles when he fell from a truck while stationed in Osaka, Japan, in 1955 or 1956. In October 2017, the local regional office (RO) requested any records, to include sick/morning reports, for a back injury at Camp Drake in Osaka, Japan. The NPRC responded that further information was needed to verify this claimed event, including specification of the Veteran’s company, battalion, and/or battery. To this end, the RO requested this information from the Veteran in November 2017, but he responded that he did not remember where and when he was treated for his ‘other injuries.’ He stated that he already had provided the information regarding his low back injury. In fact, in January 2017, he had provided some of the requested information, and it was given to the NPRC. Thus, it is unclear why the NPRC could not conduct a search to verify his contended injuries in service. Given this, as well as his confusion as to what information was being requested, further development is warranted to assist him in fully developing his claims and to determine whether any report was made for a back injury during his service. Also, because the report of the Veteran’s service separation examination was obtained by the RO following the last supposedly final and binding September 2015 rating decision, and this service department record is relevant evidence, the claims must be reconsidered as for service connection rather than initially under the new-and-material-evidence standard as if these claims, instead, first need to be reopened. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). These matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request from the Veteran any further information about the company, battery, or battalion to which he was attached while serving in Japan, as well as any other information that might help substantiate his claims. 2. Request any available hospital records, or other service records, with the Veteran’s relevant service information that might show a low back injury in Osaka, Japan, sometime in 1955 or 1956.   3. Since there is no finality to the prior September 2015 rating decision, readjudicate the claims under the criteria for service connection, i.e., without first requiring new and material evidence to reopen them. KEITH W. ALLEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Erdheim The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.