Citation Nr: 20021866 Decision Date: 03/27/20 Archive Date: 03/27/20 DOCKET NO. 18-21 191 DATE: March 27, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hemorrhagic pituitary macroadenoma is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1980 to July 1986. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to service connection for hemorrhagic pituitary macroadenoma is remanded. The Veteran contends that his hemorrhagic pituitary macroadenoma was incurred in service when he hit his head on a helicopter during an Air Assault Training exercise at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Specifically, he stated in a February 2017 statement in support of claim that a VA doctor told him that the disability had been there for 30 years, and that it was likely due to a blow to the head. The Veteran noted that that timeline would put him in the military and described an in-service injury in which he went to jump out of a helicopter when his belay man stopped his jump. He stated that this caused him to swing up under the aircraft and hit his head. He also stated that he did not go to sick call and stated in his July 2017 notice of disagreement that he was knocked out when he hit his head. In a January 2018 statement of the case (SOC), the RO noted the Veteran’s contention that a doctor had told him that the disability had been present for 30 years and that it was likely to have been caused by a blow to the head. It also noted that a July 2017 VA treatment record indicated that the Veteran reported that he had been told by his provider that his disability was over 20 years old, and that the Veteran wanted a phone call from the provider regarding the matter. The RO stated that the provider entered into the record that he did not state how old the tumor was as he could not know this. The Board notes that the most recent VA treatment record in the file is from June 2017, one month prior to the July 2017 VA treatment record referenced in the January 2018 SOC. Because the July 2017 treatment record could have a bearing on the outcome of the claim, the Board finds that a remand is required. Updated records of any other treatment should also be procured. See, e.g., Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (holding that VA is charged with constructive notice of medical evidence in its possession). The Board also notes that the Veteran’s military personnel records do not, at present, reflect that he was ever sent to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, or that he undertook Air Assault Training. While the Veteran has acknowledged that he did not go to sick call following the reported injury, the Board nevertheless finds that the RO should make further attempts to verify whether the Veteran participated in Air Assault Training at Fort Campbell. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, to include the July 2017 VA treatment record referenced in the January 2018 SOC, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. Ask the service department to specifically indicate whether the Veteran participated in Air Assault Training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Efforts to obtain the information should be fully documented and should be discontinued only if it is concluded that the evidence sought does not exist or that further efforts to obtain the evidence would be futile. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The evidence procured, if any, should be associated with the record. If any of the records sought are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect that fact, and the Veteran and his representative should be notified. 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 issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental SOC. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Oldroyd, Associate 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.