Citation Nr: 21062092 Decision Date: 10/06/21 Archive Date: 10/06/21 DOCKET NO. 18-10 913 DATE: October 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 2, 2014, for the award of service connection for lupus is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 2, 2014, for the award of service connection for fibromyalgia is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from [REDACTED] 1989 to [REDACTED] 1993. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from rating decisions dated May 2015 and August 2015 issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran timely appealed both decisions. The appellant testified at a September 2021 video hearing with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. This decision is being made under the “one-touch” program as it remands the benefit sought. A transcript of the hearing will be associated with the claims file at a later time. 1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 2, 2014, for the award of service connection for lupus is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 2, 2014, for the award of service connection for fibromyalgia is remanded. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, the Veteran’s claims must be remanded before the Board is able to make a determination on the merits. Specifically, the Board finds that VA’s duty to assist requires further development of the Veteran’s claims. Relevant to both of the claims on appeal, identified records have not been obtained. Specifically, at her September 2021 Board hearing the Veteran reported receiving treatment at [REDACTED] Air Force Base from 1993 until 1997. There is no indication that relevant medical records from [REDACTED] Air Force Base (AFB) have been requested. Significantly, the Veteran was not an active duty member while at [REDACTED] AFB. She was the dependent of an active servicemember when she received treatment at the base. Her last name was different at that time and the search should search both surnames [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. Additionally, the Board seems to be missing part of the Veteran’s claims file. The Veteran has competently reported that a claim was filed and adjudicated in 1993, but the record contains no Veteran submissions prior to 2002. During this time, the Veteran’s records may be under the last names [REDACTED] and/or [REDACTED]. Remand is required to ensure adequate measures to obtain these identified outstanding records. Furthermore, development is required in order to search for the Veteran’s additional files under the aforementioned last names. Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any available medical treatment records from the [REDACTED] Air Force Base, to include from any appropriate records repositories. Please search for these records under the names [REDACTED], [REDACTED], and [REDACTED]. Please note that these treatment records are not active duty military records but instead, were during a period when the Veteran was a dependent. If the AOJ cannot locate such records, it must specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them and explain in writing why further attempts to locate or obtain any government records would be futile. The AOJ must then: (a) notify the claimant of the specific records that it is unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts VA has made to obtain that evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claims. The claimant must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Please attempt to locate and associate with the Veteran’s claims file all claims documents for [REDACTED], [REDACTED], and [REDACTED], to include a 1993 claim for service connection. Ensure the claims file is complete. If the AOJ cannot locate such records, it must notify the Veteran and specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them and explain in writing why further attempts to locate or obtain any government records would be futile. LAURA E. COLLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Minock 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.