Citation Nr: 20042364 Decision Date: 06/23/20 Archive Date: 06/23/20 DOCKET NO. 18-48 854 DATE: June 23, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for service-connected erectile dysfunction associated with hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected hypertension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1999 to December 2002. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from February 2017 and August 2018 rating decisions of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a June 2020 statement, the Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. Remand is required for issuance of a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). Additional evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) after the records have been transferred to the Board of Veterans' Appeals for appellate consideration will be forwarded to the Board if it has a bearing on the appellate issue or issues. The Board will then determine what action is required with respect to the additional evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 19.37(b) (2018). Evidence received by the AOJ prior to transfer of the records to the Board will be referred to the appropriate rating or authorization activity for issuance of an SSOC unless the additional evidence received duplicates evidence previously of record which was discussed in the Statement of the Case or a prior SSOC or the additional evidence is not relevant to the issue on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 19.37(a). In this case, separate Statements of the Case for the claims of hypertension and erectile dysfunction were last issued in August and December 2018 respectively. Since that time, additional evidence relevant to the issues on appeal was added to the file by VA, to include VA treatment records. The appeal was transferred to the Board in May 2019. In December 2019 the Board sent a letter to the Veteran notifying him that new evidence had been added, and requested that he reply within 45 days if he would like to waive his right to AOJ review. Otherwise, the Board would assume he does not currently want the Board to decide his appeal. The Veteran did not reply to this letter. Accordingly, remand is required so that a SSOC may be issued. Remand is also required to obtain missing VA treatment records. VA has a duty to assist claimants to obtain evidence needed to substantiate a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2017). This includes making as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant records from a Federal department or agency, including, but not limited to, records from facilities with which the VA has contracted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). In January 2019 the Veteran submitted VA Form 21-4142 Authorization for Release of Information, indicating treatment at Tremont Medical Clinic Access Family Health Services (Tremont Medical). The RO requested these records, and Tremont Medical replied that they saw the Veteran in 2012 as a VA patient when they were a Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (COBC) for VA, and that any relevant records would be held by the Memphis RO. The RO sent additional letters to Tremont Medical in April and May 2019, and both were returned as undeliverable. While VA treatment records from the Memphis RO are in the claims folder, no records from Tremont Medical appear to be contained within. Accordingly, remand is required to obtain the Tremont Medical treatment records from the Memphis RO. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Memphis VA Medical Center and obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding records of treatment, including, but not limited to Tremont Medical Clinic Access Family Health Services. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified and this should be documented for the record. Required notice must be provided to the Veteran and his or her representative. 2. The AOJ must readjudicate the issue on appeal considering all pertinent evidence and legal authority. If the disposition remains unfavorable, the AOJ should furnish the Veteran and his representative with an SSOC and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Rogos 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.