Citation Nr: 20047526 Decision Date: 07/16/20 Archive Date: 07/16/20 DOCKET NO. 16-02 531 DATE: July 16, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the Navy from September 1982 to May 1990 with additional Naval Reserve service from September 2005 to December 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denying entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation. In September 2018, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim for further development. The claim is now back before the Board. The Board regrets the additional delay, but a remand is necessary to ensure compliance with the Board’s prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Veteran’s service treatment records note he was first treated for atrial fibrillation in October 2010. A September 2015 VA opinion by Dr. JRV opined the Veteran’s atrial fibrillation started at this October 2010 event where the Veteran was initially found “not physically qualified for duty” with the Reserve “as his unit was preparing for a deployment, [the Veteran] requested and was advised that he could possible join the Army National Guard. While participating in the physical at the National Guard Arsenal in Jefferson City, Missouri, he was found to be in atrial fibrillation and was referred for medical evaluation.” October 2010 VA treatment records note the Veteran sought treatment after he “failed Chapter 3 physical examination for National Guard entry examination due to abnormal EKG.” It is unclear from the record whether the Veteran’s onset of atrial fibrillation, which appears to have occurred during a physical examination for the National Guard, occurred during a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) or inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA), or if he lacked a duty status at all at that time. The September 2018 Board remand directed the AOJ to contact the Veteran for details of his Reserve service, including periods ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. The Board also instructed the AOJ to “contact all appropriate sources to obtain the Veteran’s complete service personnel file and service treatment records.” Thereafter, the AOJ sent the Veteran one subsequent development letter in June 2019. There is no evidence of any development by the AOJ or further attempts to contact the Veteran or his representative. Then, in May 2020, the AOJ issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) denying the Veteran’s claim. VA’s duty to assist includes assisting the Veteran in the procurement of relevant records and taking “reasonable efforts to help a claimant obtain evidence necessary to substantiate the claim.” See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). Further, as these appear to be Federal records, efforts are required until the records are obtained or until it can be certified that they are unavailable and further efforts would be futile. The Board finds one letter to the Veteran does not satisfy the requirement of the AOJ to provide reasonable efforts. A simple review of the Veteran’s service personnel files currently in the record reflect the Veteran served in the Naval Reserve under Unit NMCB 15 DET 1615 in October 2010. His May 2010 VA Form 21-526 states his Reserve unit address was Freemont Avenue MCB15 Springfield, MO and phone number was 417-869-7389. On remand, the AOJ must make reasonable efforts to help the Veteran obtain the evidence necessary to substantiate his claim. For the Veteran’s Naval Reserve records, the AOJ must make “as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant records from Federal departments or agency” in possession of said records to determine whether the Veteran was on a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA during the claimed October 2010 incident. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make reasonable efforts to contact the Veteran requesting information detailing his Reserve and National Guard service, including ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA periods following his period of active duty ending in May 1990. Copies of any orders to report for examination for National Guard purposes in October 2010 must be specifically requested. 2. Contact all appropriate sources to obtain the Veteran’s complete Reserve and National Guard service personnel files and service treatment records and, then, determine whether the Veteran’s diagnosis of atrial fibrillation in October 2010 occurred during a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. The AOJ should note the Veteran’s May 2010 VA Form 21-526 states his Reserve unit address was Freemont Avenue MCB15 Springfield, MO and phone number was 417-869-7389. Additionally, the Veteran’s service personnel record reflects he was in Naval Reserve Unit NMCB 15 DET 1615 in October 2010, the date of his atrial fibrillation. Further, a September 2015 VA examiner opined the Veteran’s atrial fibrillation was at least as likely as not related to this October 2010 occurrence. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the claim. Such should include a specific determination as to the Veteran’s duty status at the time of his Chapter 3 examination for the National Guard. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Appellant and his representative with a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), and return the case to the Board. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Bona, 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.