Citation Nr: 20005192 Decision Date: 01/24/20 Archive Date: 01/22/20 DOCKET NO. 16-38 398 DATE: January 24, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1986 to January 1994 with a subsequent period of Army National Guard service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New Orleans, Louisiana. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine condition is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder condition is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition is remanded. 7. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle condition is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diabetes mellitus type II, hypertension, a lumbar spine condition, a right shoulder condition, a left ankle condition, and a right ankle condition. Based on a review of the claims folder, the Board finds that additional development is needed prior to adjudication of the claims. Review of the record reveals that the Veteran served in the Louisiana Army National Guard following active duty service. However, there is an indication that his complete military personnel record and service treatment records have not been associated with the electronic claims file. For instance, in a June 2014 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he was medically discharged in 2005 because he was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, but there are no records that address the Veteran’s medical discharge or a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Further, the record contains a medical examiner’s certificate from 2005, yet there are no other references to or documentation of the Veteran’s service during this period of time in either military personnel records or service treatment records. As VA has a duty to assist a claimant in obtaining service and other governmental treatment records, remand is required to obtain National Guard records potentially pertinent to the Veteran’s claims. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. The Board notes that that service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Active military, naval, or air service includes any period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty, or any period of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from injury (but not disease) incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(21), (22), (23), (24), 106; 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a), (c), (d). A National Guardsman seeking service connection for a Guard-related injury or disease must establish that they either became disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred during a period of ACDUTRA, or became disabled or died from an injury incurred during a period of INACDUTRA. 38 C.F.R. § 3.6. If the Veteran contends he developed hypertension as well as diabetes mellitus type II during service, it must be shown that these conditions either began during or were otherwise caused by a period of active duty or ACDUTRA, as these conditions are diseases and not injuries. See 38 U.S.C. § 101(24). Service treatment records reflect that the Veteran was not diagnosed with either disease when his period of active duty ended in January 1994, thus his claims for diabetes mellitus and hypertension must be based on a period of ACDUTRA. While the record contains incomplete National Guard retirement points statements, these reports are imprecise for ascertaining specific periods of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. If the Veteran was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension in service, it is necessary to establish whether the Veteran was serving on ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA at the time. Thus, a remand is warranted so that the AOJ may attempt to confirm the Veteran’s actual periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the Veteran’s claim, to include complete service treatment records and military personnel records from his documented ACDUTRA AND INACDUTRA reserve service. If any requested records are unavailable, or the search for such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact should clearly be documented in the record and the Veteran so notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). All steps taken to attempt to obtain the above records should clearly be documented in the record. (Continued on the next page)   2. The AOJ should request that the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), or any other appropriate source verify all periods of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA with the Louisiana National Guard. Reports of retirement points do not provide sufficient information to satisfy the requirements of this remand order. A listing of dates of service and whether within those dates the service can be characterized as active, ACDUTRA, or INACDUTRA, is required. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran’s claims should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and return the case to the Board. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Department of Veterans Affairs 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.