Citation Nr: 21004750 Decision Date: 01/28/21 Archive Date: 01/28/21 DOCKET NO. 17-18 537 DATE: January 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for regular aid and attendance is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 22, 1976 to October 15, 1976. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2017 and December 2019, the Board remanded these matters for additional development, which has not been substantially completed. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for ALS is remanded. The Veteran’s Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD-214) reflects a period of active duty service from July 22, 1976 to October 15, 1976. Including the first and last days of service, this amounts to 86 days. This is significant as the Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for ALS based on the presumptive provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.318, which requires that a veteran have served at least 90 days of active continuous service. VA regulations provide that “active duty” service includes authorized travel to or from such duty or service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(b)(6), (c)(6). In this regard, a person discharged or released from a period of active duty shall be deemed to have continued on active duty during the period of time immediately following the date of such discharge or release from such duty determined by the Secretary concerned to have been required for him or her to proceed to his or her home by the most direct route, and in all instances, until midnight of the date of such discharge or release. 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(b)(7). In this case, the Veteran was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) in June 1976. His orders specifically denote the Veteran’s Pay Entry Base Date (PEBD) as June 15, 1976, with a completion date of October 22, 1976. His orders state that he was to report to Ft. Sill, Oklahoma on July 22, 1976 and complete training on or about October 22, 1976. He was authorized travel by public carrier and notified that a transportation officer would furnish transportation and meal tickets. The Veteran’s orders do not indicate how many days were authorized for travel to and from his duty station. In November 2017, the Board remanded this matter so that the RO could attempt to verify the Veteran’s travel dates. The RO contacted the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) but was unsuccessful in obtaining verification of the Veteran’s travel dates or travel vouchers. In October 2019, the RO issued a memorandum indicating that records are not available and attempts to obtain additional documentation would be futile. In the November 2017 remand, the Board directed the RO to contact DFAS or other appropriate authorities to request the travel claim. In the December 2019 remand, the Board pointed out that while the RO contacted DFAS, the RO did not contact the National Guard and request verification of the Veteran’s travel or in the alternative, request information regarding standard practices and policies concerning authorized travel. The Board acknowledged that in an August 2018 statement, the Veteran reported that he was allotted five days for travel and that he left his home on July 20, 1976 and arrived at Ft. Sill on the morning of July 22, 1976. In the December 2019 remand, the Board directed the RO to ask appropriate personnel from the National Guard whether it has records pertaining to the Veteran’s travel in July and October 1976 between Virginia and Oklahoma, or in the alternative, whether the National Guard had standard practices and policies in 1976 regarding days allotted for authorized travel to and from duty stations. In August 2020, the RO asked the Virginia Adjutant General’s Office to provide documentation pertaining to the Veteran’s authorized travel between his home in Virginia and his duty station at Ft. Sill in July and October 1976. The RO asked that if the National Guard did not have documentation of the Veteran’s travel, to advise of the standard practice or procedures in 1976 pertaining to the number of days allotted for travel to and from duty stations. A second request was made in September 2020. In response to the RO’s inquiry, the National Guard sent another copy of the Veteran’s personnel records; however, the National Guard did not address the standard practices for travel in 1976. The RO did not follow up. On remand, the RO must specifically ask the Adjutant General or other appropriate authority to address the standard travel practices or procedures in 1976 pertaining to the number of days allotted for travel to and from duty stations, to include whether it was reasonable for the Veteran to take two travel days to arrive at Ft. Sill and two days to return to Virginia, for a total of four travel days. 2. Entitlement to SMC based on the need for regular aid and attendance is remanded. Finally, because a decision on the claim for service connection could significantly impact a decision on the issue of entitlement to SMC, the issues are inextricably intertwined. A remand of the claim for SMC is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Contact appropriate personnel with the National Guard and request ask whether it had standard practices or procedures in 1976 pertaining to the number of days allotted for travel to and from duty stations. The Veteran indicated that he was allotted five days for travel. His trip commenced July 20, 1976 and he arrived at Ft. Sill on July 22, 1976, resulting in two days of travel prior to the commencement of ADT. Presumably, the return trip would add two days of travel. The National Guard should be asked whether this information can be verified and/or if the travel days, a total of four days, are reasonable. (Continued on the next page)   Efforts to obtain this information must continue until it is determined that it does not exist or that further attempts to obtain it would be futile. All attempts to obtain information must be documented in the claims file. 2. After completing the above actions, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the paragraphs above, the claims must be readjudicated. If the claims remain denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. After the Veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Amanda G. Alderman 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.