Citation Nr: 20053049 Decision Date: 08/11/20 Archive Date: 08/11/20 DOCKET NO. 15-09 807 DATE: August 11, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected Type II diabetes mellitus (“diabetes mellitus”) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from February 1963 to February 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a hearing in June 2018. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. By way of background, in a July 2018 Board decision, the Board denied the issue of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected diabetes mellitus and remanded the issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension. The Veteran appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Court”). In May 2019, the Court issued a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) vacating the July 2018 Board decision and remanding the issue stated above to the Board for action consistent with the JMR. Pursuant to the May 2019 JMR, in October 2019, the Board remanded the issue stated above for further evidentiary development. During the appeal process, in an April 2020 rating decision, the RO granted the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for hypertension. As such, the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for hypertension is no longer on appeal. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected diabetes mellitus is remanded. In the October 2019 Board remand order, the Board requested that VA treatment records be obtained from May 2019 to the present. The Board also requested that the “scanned document attached to this note” as referenced in September 22, 2014; September 22, 2014; and September 23, 2014 VA treatment records titled “Non VA Care Consult Result Note” that can be accessed by Tools, Imaging and then Display be associated with the file. See March 2016 CAPRI. The Veteran argues that the RO did not substantially comply with the remand order as the VA treatment records “only go back to ‘112219’” and that the 2014 scanned documents are not associated with the file. See July 2020 Appellate Brief. The Veteran also argued that a supplemental statement of the case was not issued. The Board finds that all updated VA treatment records are associated with the file from May 2019 to July 2020. See November 2019 CAPRI, June 2020 CAPRI, and July 2020 CAPRI. However, the September 2014 scanned documents are not associated with the file. Additionally, the Board finds that a remand is required so that the RO may re-adjudicate the claim and issue the Veteran a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) for the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to an increased rating for diabetes mellitus. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a remand is warranted. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the file the “scanned document attached to this note” as referenced in September 22, 2014; September 22, 2014; and September 23, 2014 VA treatment records titled “Non VA Care Consult Result Note” that can be accessed by Tools, Imaging and then Display. See March 2016 CAPRI. 2. After the foregoing has been completed, schedule the Veteran for an examination to address the current severity of his service-connected diabetes mellitus. 3. Thereafter, conduct any additional development necessary as a result of the directives above and then readjudicate the issue. If the determination remains unfavorable to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case. The Veteran and his representative should be afforded the applicable time period to respond. S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Noh, 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.