Citation Nr: 21001715 Decision Date: 01/11/21 Archive Date: 01/11/21 DOCKET NO. 09-31 914 DATE: January 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from July 1988 to July 1991. The Veteran had additional active service in the Army National Guard during the period from March 1995 to April 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal form a May 2008 rating decision of the Department of Veterans affairs (VA) regional Office (RO). It was previously remanded by the Board in October 2014 for additional development. In relevant part, the October 2014 Board remand directed the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to verify all periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). In his initial application for entitlement to service connection for HIV, the Veteran indicated he was diagnosed and treated for HIV in 1993. See October 2006 VA Form 21-526. In May 2009, the Veteran reported he was diagnosed with HIV during a Pre-deployment Health Assessment in 2005. See May 2009 VA Form 21-4138. In August 2009, the Veteran indicated he received orders to active duty while a member of the Reserves, and that he was diagnosed with HIV in 1997 or 1998 during medical prescreening. See August 2009 VA Form 9. Although the Veteran has reported varied dates for his initial diagnosis of HIV, he has consistently indicated his diagnosis of HIV was discovered during medical prescreening in connection with orders to active duty while serving in the Army National Guard and/or Reserves. Based on the current evidence of record it appears the Veteran entered active duty in July 1988 and was transferred to the Navy Reserve following his honorable discharge in July 1991. See DD Form 214. Currently, there is no evidence demonstrating that the Veteran had active service in the Navy Reserve. On a Report of Separation from the Army National Guard (NGB Form 22), it appears the Veteran had active service during the period from March 1995 to April 1997, with his military service obligation expiring in March 1999. Although it appears that attempts have been made to obtain service treatment records and verification of service for all of the above periods of service, it does not appear VA received a response to such requests from the District of Columbia Army National Guard. See January and April 2019 correspondence to the District of Columbia Army National Guard. The Board adds that a September 2007 memorandum from the District of Columbia Army National Guard Medical Command noted that the Veteran’s medical records were not available. However, the above referenced NGB Form 22 was sent from the District of Columbia Army National Guard Archives with the September 2007 memorandum, and it is not clear from the memorandum if additional service personnel records may be available. The Board regrets the additional delay, but finds remand is necessary in order to comply with the October 2014 remand instructions to attempt to verify all periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (A remand by the Board confers on an appellant the right to VA compliance with the terms of the remand order and imposes on the Secretary a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with those terms). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Attempt to obtain all of the Veteran’s service personnel records, including any retirement point statements, from appropriate repositories pertaining to any service in the Navy Reserve, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve – to include from the Adjutant General of the District of Columbia Army National Guard Archives, the National Personnel Record Center, and/or U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Verify all periods of active duty, ACDUTRA, and INACDUTRA. Document all requests for information, as well as responses in the claims file. Readjudicate the appeal. If the benefit sought remains denied, issue the Veteran and his attorney a supplemental statement of the case and inform the Veteran of his appeal options. Robert N. Scarduzio Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Mask, 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.