Citation Nr: 20060455 Decision Date: 09/14/20 Archive Date: 09/14/20 DOCKET NO. 12-31 455A DATE: September 14, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1977 to January 1979. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The appeal was last remanded by the Board in May 2019 for additional development. Regrettably, more development is still necessary. Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that he injured his left wrist when he fell during bootcamp, which resulted in a hospital visit where he was told that he had a hairline fracture and was put in a partial cast. The Veteran reported that his left wrist injury was cleared after six weeks and that he was allowed to continue training. The Veteran also reported that his deployment to Germany was delayed as a result of this left wrist injury. Most of the Veteran’s service treatment records are missing. In light of the incomplete service treatment records, VA has a heightened duty to assist and a heightened obligation to consider the benefit-of-the doubt rule. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 369-370 (2005); see also Dixon v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 261, 263 (1992). A January 1977 enlistment agreement for a delayed entry program indicates that the Veteran was to be stationed in Europe. A February 1978 record of proceedings under Article 15 indicates that the Veteran was stationed in Illesheim, Germany at that time. Lastly, the Veteran’s certificate of release or discharge from active duty, Form DD 214, indicates that the Veteran served overseas for one year, four months, and one day with Germany being the country of last overseas service. The Veteran’s military personnel records are consistent with his reports of overseas service in Germany. In addition, the Veteran submitted statements from both his mother and his father to corroborate his reports of an in-service injury to his left wrist that delayed his deployment to Germany. Applying the benefit of the doubt rule, the Board finds the Veteran’s report of an in-service injury to his left wrist to be competent and credible. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2019. During the December 2019 VA examination, the examiner determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the Veteran’s contentions that he had suffered an in-service injury to his left wrist. Since the Board has found the Veteran’s contentions regarding his left wrist injury to be competent and credible, a new VA examination is warranted to consider those contentions. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion, or schedule a VA examination, if necessary, to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed left wrist disability. The Veteran’s claims file must be made accessible to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. This review should include the January 2015 statements from the Veteran’s mother and father, the October 2018 hearing transcript, and the assertions of the Veteran and his representative, along with any other information the medical professional deems pertinent. A note that this information was reviewed should be included in the opinion. (a.) The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or more probability) that the Veteran’s left wrist disability is etiologically related to service. (b.) The examiner is also advised that the Veteran’s report of an in-service injury to his left wrist during bootcamp is competent and credible and such report must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. (c.) A complete rationale for all findings and conclusions must be provided. 2. Then, readjudicate the claim. If the determination of the claim remains unfavorable to the Veteran, then issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford him a reasonable period of time to respond before returning the case to the Board. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Palombi, 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.