Citation Nr: 20021563 Decision Date: 03/26/20 Archive Date: 03/26/20 DOCKET NO. 16-13 019 DATE: March 26, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1969 to January 1971. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Evidence in the record shows the Veteran has been diagnosed with multiple back conditions; therefore, the Board will broadly construe the issue as a claim for service connection for a back disability. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 6 (2009). In June 2019, a hearing was held before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Back Disability The Veteran is seeking service connection for a back disability. He claims that while at Fort Knox in 1969 during a 20-mile march he became very dizzy and disoriented and then passed out. He was told that he had fallen down the side of a ridge along the road. He stated he was hospitalized at the base hospital and had two spinal taps performed and when he returned to his unit, he was very weak, had trouble walking, and had numbness and pain in his lower back. He was eventually sent to Fort Clayton in Panama and when cleaning switching banks he got dizzy and fell off a ladder. His back was in pain and he was sent to the dispensary and was given pills and a rub for his back. When he arrived home, he was still dealing with back pain, which consisted of occasional flare-ups, but as the years progressed the pain began to worsen. The RO denied the Veteran’s claim on the basis that there was no objective evidence of a back injury during service. The Veteran’s service treatment records include a February 1969 disposition slip showing a discharge from hospitalization, but there are no other records regarding his hospitalization at Fort Knox. The Board notes that in-service hospitalization records are sometimes stored at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) separately from a Veteran’s other service treatment records, and there is no indication in the record that there has been an attempt to determine whether any in-patient records of hospitalization exist. These records may help the Veteran establish his claim for service connection for a back disability. Therefore, upon remand, action should be taken to request and associate with the file any service hospital records concerning the Veteran. Also, on remand, the Veteran should be afforded the opportunity to submit any evidence in support of his claim. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify or submit any additional pertinent evidence in support of his claim. Based on his response, attempt to procure copies of all records which have not previously been obtained from identified treatment sources. 2. Attempt to obtain the Veteran’s inpatient hospitalization records from the Army hospital at Fort Knox, Kentucky from the appropriate records depository. The Board again notes that service hospitalization records are sometimes stored separately from other service treatment records, and a specific request should be made for such separately stored records. All efforts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Bonnie Yoon, 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.