Citation Nr: 21002386 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 15-12 055A DATE: January 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from June 1987 to June 1988, and in the United States Marine Corps from January 1992 to January 1996. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from September 2012 and November 2013 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2018, the Veteran and his spouse testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. This matter was previously before the Board in March 2019 at which time the issues on appeal were remanded for additional development; namely, to afford the Veteran new VA examinations and to identify and obtain any outstanding medical records. For the reasons explained below, additional development is necessary. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Also on appeal in March 2019 were issues of entitlement to service connection for headaches and for a skin disability. In a subsequent RO decision in August 2020, the RO granted service connection for headaches and for eczema and tinea versicolor. As this decision represents a full grant of the benefits sought with respect to these claims, they are no longer on appeal. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). The Board notes that there is a pending appeal regarding the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a cervical spine disability, including the Veteran’s request for a Board video conference hearing. This appeal has not been certified for appellate review and is referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction for appropriate action. The Veteran testified before the Board in August 2018 that he has had ankle and knee problems since service. He also testified that he began seeking VA treatment for these conditions at the Lake City/Gainesville VA medical center in 2005 when he moved to Florida, but there are no VA treatment records on file prior to September 2012. He also indicated that before moving to Florida he was treated by private physicians. These identified missing treatment records are essential to this claim and must be obtained. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b), (c); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (VA medical records are in constructive possession of the agency, and must be obtained if the material could be determinative of the claim). This is especially so when considering that the VA nexus opinions on file in September 2012, October 2013 and January 2020 are at least partly based on the lack of complaints or treatment for these claimed disabilities for many years after service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records following appropriate procedures and associate them with the claims file, to specifically include VA treatment records from the Lake City/Gainesville VA medical center(s) from 2005 to 2012. If the requested records cannot be located after making adequate attempts, the claims folder should be documented of that fact and the Veteran should be given the opportunity to provide the missing records. 2. After completing the requested action, and any additional notification and/or development warranted (to include obtaining addendum examinations/nexus opinions regarding the likely nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed ankle and knee disabilities), readjudicate the claims on appeal considering all pertinent evidence (to include all evidence added to the electronic claims file since the last adjudication) and legal authority. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Shawkey, 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.