Citation Nr: 20011996 Decision Date: 02/13/20 Archive Date: 02/12/20 DOCKET NO. 16-56 292 DATE: February 13, 2020 REMANDED 1. Entitlement to service connection for pelvic pain secondary to pelvic injury is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a spinal cord injury is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1998 to July 2003. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at an October 2019 videoconference hearing and a transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for pelvic pain secondary to pelvic injury is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a spinal cord injury is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches is remanded. Following a review of the record, the Board finds that a remand is required for further development regarding the Veteran’s claims of entitlement to service connection for pelvic pain secondary to pelvic injury, spinal cord injury, and migraine headaches. Specifically, upon remand, the RO must obtain relevant treatment records that have been identified by the Veteran. In January 2016, the Veteran submitted VA Form 21-4142a, General Release for Medical Provider Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and requested VA’s assistance to obtain relevant treatment records from several facilities: the Naval Operating Base (NOB) in Norfolk, Virginia, from 1998 to May 2001, Portsmouth Hospital in Portsmouth, Virginia, from May 2001, and Point Loma Naval Base in Point Loma, California, from May 2003 to August 2003. Later that same month, the VA Private Medical Records (PMR) Retrieval Center issued a “Medical Records Request Reject Notice” because the request for records from the Point Loma Naval Base did not meet the criteria for action under the PMR program guideline because the records were military records and not private treatment records. Notably, the September 2016 statement of the case (SOC) does not document that any of the identified records were part of the evidence considered by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), and at the October 2019 Board videoconference hearing, the Veteran and her representative requested that VA attempt to obtain the outstanding records. Following the Board hearing, the record was left open for 60 days to allow the Veteran to submit additional records, and in November 2019, she submitted relevant psychological and chiropractic records; however, to date, it does not appear that VA has made any additional efforts to obtain the records identified by the Veteran in January 2016 in order to associate them with the record. As such records have been identified, the Board finds that these outstanding and relevant treatment records should be sought upon remand in order to fulfill VA’s duty to assist. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Take all necessary steps in order to obtain the outstanding and relevant treatment records identified by the Veteran in the January 2016 VA Form 21-4142a, including from the Naval Operating Base (NOB) in Norfolk, Virginia, from 1998 to May 2001, Portsmouth Hospital in Portsmouth, Virginia, from May 2001, and Point Loma Naval Base in Point Loma, California, from May 2003 to August 2003. Obtain authorization from the Veteran if necessary and associate all records received with the claims file, to the extent possible. If the records cannot be obtained and associated with the claims file, the claims file should be so documented, and the Veteran and her representative notified of the same and given the opportunity to provide the records. A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Chad Johnson, Counsel 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.