Citation Nr: 20054823 Decision Date: 08/19/20 Archive Date: 08/19/20 DOCKET NO. 17-60 920 DATE: August 19, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for gout of the bilateral great toes is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability for compensation purposes is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left trigger finger disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ear hearing loss disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. FINDING OF FACT During a February 2020 hearing before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), the Veteran withdrew the issue of entitlement to service connection for gout of the bilateral great toes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for gout of the bilateral great toes are met. 38 C.F.R. § 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (2018); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from May 1979 to April 1982, and from December 1983 to November 1985 in the United States Marine Corps (USMC). In an April 2017 administrative decision, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determined that his service from May 1979 to April 1982 is considered to have been issued under honorable conditions, and that his service from December 1983 to November 1985 is considered to have been issued under other than honorable conditions. Therefore, he is only entitled to healthcare benefits under Chapter 17, 38 U.S.C., for disabilities determined to be service connected during his second period of active service. This matter comes before the Board on appeal from an April 2017 rating decision issued by a Regional Office (RO) of VA. The RO determined the Veteran’s left wrist disability was incurred during his second period of active service and granted service connection for treatment purposes only pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Chapter 17. The Veteran appealed, seeking service connection for compensation purposes. In February 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Withdrawn Issue The Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. A substantive appeal may be withdrawn on record at a hearing or in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. During a February 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran indicated that he no longer wanted to pursue the issue of entitlement to service connection for gout of the bilateral great toes. As such, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review that issue on appeal, and it is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND The Board has determined that additional development is required before the remaining claims on appeal are decided. Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran’s first name and social security number that were used during active service are different from those he uses currently. According to the Veteran, he took measures to correct his name and social security number in 2011. In this case, the Veteran’s service treatment records from his first period of active service are missing; however, it does not appear that a search was conducted under both of the Veteran’s first names (the name he used during service and the name on his birth certificate) and both of his social security numbers (the number listed during service and his corrected social security number). Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary so that additional attempts can be made to secure those service treatment records. The Board also finds that additional attempts should be made to obtain any outstanding VA treatment records using both Veteran’s names and social security numbers of record. In March 2020, the RO obtained VA treatment records dated from March 2017 to March 2020, which note his current, corrected social security number. In October 2016, the RO also attempted VA treatment records under the social security number listed during active service. VA treatment records were obtained dated from April 2016 to September 2016; however, while some of those records appear to relate to the Veteran, others do not. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary so that any outstanding VA treatment records can be obtained. In addition, the record indicates that the Veteran reported that he was receiving disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). Because those records may be relevant to the Veteran’s appeal, the Board finds that a remand is necessary so that they may be obtained and reviewed by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Regarding the left ankle, the record indicates that Veteran fell through a roof, injured his left ankle, and received workers’ compensation. Because those records may be relevant, the AOJ should attempt to secure such records. Also regarding the left ankle, the Veteran testified that he injured his ankle during training exercises in 1981 and was put on light duty for two weeks. In December 1983, on an enlistment Report of Medical History, it was noted that he had sprained his left ankle four years previously. VA treatment records note a left injury in March 2017, and complaints of current left ankle pain. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a remand is necessary for a VA examination to address the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed left ankle disability. Regarding the left wrist, the Veteran testified that he fell and injured his left wrist during training in June or July of 1979 and was in a cast for about four months. He stated that he injured his wrist again in 1984 during his second period of service and was put in a cast. In December 1983, on an enlistment Report of Medical History, it was noted that he had fractured his left wrist in 1979. VA treatment records note complaints of current left wrist pain. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a remand is necessary for a VA examination to address the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed left wrist disability. Regarding the respiratory disability, the Veteran testified that he was treated for smoke inhalation after his hooch caught fire during his first period of service, was treated with oxygen and medications, and was put on light duty for one month. VA and private treatment records show complaints of shortness of breath and diagnoses of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and bronchitis. Those records also show a history of cigarette tobacco smoking. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a remand is necessary for a VA examination to address the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed respiratory disability. Regarding the left trigger finger disability, the Veteran testified that he fell down a hill in full gear and injured his finger during his first period of active service. VA treatment records show complaints of left trigger finger pain. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a remand is necessary for a VA examination to address the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed left finger trigger disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should make additional attempts to obtain the Veteran’s service treatment records from his first period of active service from May 1979 to April 1982 using both names and social security numbers of record. 2. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA treatment records using both Veteran’s names and social security numbers of record, and associate them with the claims file. 3. Obtain and associate with the claims file the Veteran’s SSA disability benefits records, to include the claim, any decision, and any medical records associated with the claim. Attempts should be made to obtain those records using both Veteran’s names and social security numbers of record 4. Obtain a copy of any determinations associated with the Veteran’s application for Workers’ Compensation benefits, as well as copies of all medical records underlying any determinations. Attempts should be made to obtain those records using both Veteran’s names and social security numbers of record. 5. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an examiner with sufficient expertise to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed left ankle disability. The claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated test or studies should be provided. Based on the examination results and a review of the record, including any additionally received treatment records and the Veteran’s assertions, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or better) that any currently present left ankle disability was incurred in or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s first period of active service dated from May 1979 to April 1982. A rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 6. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an examiner with sufficient expertise to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed left wrist disability. The claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated test or studies should be provided. Based on the examination results and a review of the record, including any additionally received treatment records and the Veteran’s assertions, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or better) ) that any currently present left wrist disability was incurred in or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s first period of active service dated from May 1979 to April 1982. The Board notes that the Veteran reported that he fractured his left wrist in 1979 during his first period of active service and in 1984 during his second period of active service. If the examiner is unable to differentiate current left wrist symptoms that were incurred in or related to his first period of active service from his second period of active service, the examiner should so state in the report and explain why. A rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 7. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an examiner with sufficient expertise to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed respiratory disability. The claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated test or studies should be provided. Based on the examination results and a review of the record, including any additionally received treatment records and the Veteran’s assertions, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or better) that any currently present respiratory disability was incurred in or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s first period of active service dated from May 1979 to April 1982. A rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 8. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an examiner with sufficient expertise to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed left trigger finger disability. The claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated test or studies should be provided. Based on the examination results and a review of the record, including any additionally received treatment records and the Veteran’s assertions, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or better) that any currently present left trigger finger disability was incurred in or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s first period of active service dated from May 1979 to April 1982. A rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 9. Confirm that the VA examination reports and all opinions provided comport with this remand and undertake any other development found to be warranted. (Continued on the next page)   10. Then, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If a decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mishalanie, 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.