Citation Nr: 20044451 Decision Date: 07/01/20 Archive Date: 07/01/20 DOCKET NO. 20-13 492 DATE: July 1, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right wrist carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from January 1952 to December 1953. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2018 rating decision. Entitlement to service connection for right wrist carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection for a disability, the Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As to the existence of a present disability, the Veteran’s private treatment records reflect a diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. In a March 2020 correspondence, the Veteran states he experiences carpal tunnel syndrome of the right wrist due to intense and long periods of sending and receiving Morse code using a telegraph key and that he served as a high-speed radio operator. His military records reflect training as a Radio Operator, service in Korea, and work as a Chief Radio Operator. Furthermore, his military records document information pertaining to Morse code operators. Accordingly, with regard to the second element, the Board finds an in-service event. As to the etiology of the Veteran’s carpal tunnel syndrome, he has not received an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his carpel tunnel syndrome. The Veteran’s file reflects that an examination was attempted, but it was cancelled. As a result, a remand is required to obtain a VA examination and opinion. Here, in May 2018 the RO requested the Veteran’s service treatment records and service personnel records. However, documentation in the claims file reflects that the Veteran’s service records are fire-related, which means if there were in fact records related to the Veteran stored at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), they probably were destroyed in the 1973 fire. The Veteran has been fully apprised of the procedures applicable to fire-related records and assisted in that regard. See RO letter to the Veteran, dated August 31, 2018. He was provided an NA Form 13055, Request for Information Needed to Reconstruct Medical Data, and an NA Form 13075, Questionnaire About Military Service, which were returned in September 2018. On the NA Form 13075, he indicated that he had service in the Army Reserves from September 12, 1953 to September 12, 1961. When the NPRC informs VA that records were lost in the 1973 fire, or when there is other evidence in the file that a claimant’s service records have otherwise been lost or destroyed, VA has a heightened duty to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt rule, to assist a claimant in developing a claim, and to explain its findings and conclusions. Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996); O’Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 369-70 (2005). On remand, an additional attempt should be made to obtain any treatment records from the Veteran’s period of service in the Army Reserves from September 12, 1953 to September 12, 1961. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make arrangements to obtain the Veteran’s complete treatment records from his period of service in the Army Reserves from September 12, 1953 to September 12, 1961. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc., if an in-person examination is not feasible) to address the etiology of his carpal tunnel syndrome of the right wrist. The claims file and a copy of this Remand must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. All indicated tests and studies should be performed, and all clinical findings reported. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) any carpal tunnel syndrome of the right wrist had its clinical onset during active service or is related to any incident of service, to include from strain from high-impact involving the use of his forearm and hand while sending and receiving Morse code using a telegraph key and serving as a high-speed radio operator. In developing his/her opinions, the examiner should consider the Veteran’s statements that he experienced numbness in his right hand during service that sometimes made it impossible for him to do his job as a high-speed radio operator and it required using his “fingers to operate the telegraphers key”; that he was given painkillers in service and had to work through the pain; and that he has continued to live with the problems all these years. See VA Form 9, dated March 5, 2020. The examiner’s opinion must reflect consideration of the Veteran’s reports as to his history and symptomatology. If the examiner chooses to reject his reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so, and his lay statements must not be rejected due solely to an absence of contemporaneous or corroborating medical evidence, although this may be considered together with the other evidence of record. The examiner must provide a comprehensive report that includes a complete rationale for all opinions and conclusions reached. If any of the above requested opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state this and specifically explain whether there is any potentially available information that, if obtained, would allow for a non-speculative opinion to be provided. P. M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Buck Denton 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.