Citation Nr: 21062566 Decision Date: 10/08/21 Archive Date: 10/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-59 641 DATE: October 8, 2021 REMAND Entitlement to service connection for cerebral arteriosclerosis is remanded. REASONS AND BASES FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Army on active duty from January 1981 to May 1981 with service in the United States Army Reserve until approximately 2001. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) from a rating decision February 2015 issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a November 2019 hearing, and a transcript of this hearing is of record. The Board issued a remand order for further development in February 2020. There has not been substantial compliance with Board remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Entitlement to reopen claim of service connection for cerebrovascular accident (stroke) In September 2011 the Veteran filed to reopen a previously denied claim, contending that she suffered a stroke during her military service on April 15, 1996. The Veteran has not provided any theories of causation for the stroke, aside from the contention that it occurred when on INACDUTRA. See August 2014 STR Medical, p. 2. However, private treatment records from N. Medical Center show that she was admitted on April 8 for symptoms that occurred one day earlier April 7, 1996 a Sunday, and it was Easter Sunday. See August 2014 STR-Medical, p. 104. She reported that the usual practice for her unit was to hold unit training activities (UTAs) on the first weekend of the month. In an August 2013 statement in support of her claim, the Veteran stated that "at the time of my cerebrovascular accident (stroke), I was at home the morning of drill getting ready when I suffer[ed] the stroke. It is my understanding that the law states active-duty time starts at twelve o'clock. I believe I should have been consider[ed] to be on active duty at the time of my stroke because I was preparing to go to drill. Please clarify when active-duty time starts for VA purposes." See August 2013 VA 21-4138 Statement in Support of Claim. The Veteran further testified that she was traveling to her Reserve drill when her stroke occurred at her hearing before the Board. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript, p. 12. Based upon the Veteran's testimony, the Board reopened the Veteran's claim in February 2020 to determine whether the Veteran was required to participate in INACDUTRA in April 1996 at a time and place consistent with traveling to the site from home at the time of her stroke, and the location during travel when the stroke occurred. See February 2020 BVA Remand. The Veteran then wrote to VA, stating "if memory serves me correct, UTA first weekend every month. I sold my house...and moved in [with] my parents...I remember having the stroke before I moved into my new home in June or July 1996." See March 2020 VA 21-4138. In conjunction with this the Veteran submitted DFAS Form 702, showing her retirement points that do show credit for 33 points of IDT during the period from September 1995 to September 1996. However, these records did not contain evidence of whether she was on drill or traveling to drill at the time of her stroke, now best determined to have been April 7, 1996. See March 2020 third Party Correspondence. At this time, her unit was the 453rd Transportation Company based in New Orleans. A supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) was provided in July 2020, explaining that the Veteran suffered a stroke in April 1996 and that there was no evidence in her military personnel records showing that she was on reserve duty at the time. As such, service connection was denied. See July 2020 SSOC. The Veteran responded with a statement, in which she cited "command policy" which she believed indicates that her drill weekend would have been scheduled in the first weekend of April due to Easter Sunday. Based upon this, the Veteran reiterated her belief that she was on INACDUTRA with an Army Reserve unit when her stroke occurred. See August 2020 VA 21-4138. In September 2021 the Veteran's representative submitted an appellate brief, in which it was argued that the Veteran's lay testimony was credible and should be considered. See September 2021 Appellate Brief. The claim is now properly before the Board. In the present case, the Veteran suffered a stroke in April 1996. The Veteran contends, based upon her recollection and her reading of policy, that she had INACDUTRA orders at the time of her stroke. Although it is questionable that a unit would schedule training on Easter Sunday, the Veteran testified that the first weekend of the month was the policy, and it may not have been changed because of a religious but not federal holiday. A careful review of the Veteran's military personnel records does not show when she drilled in 1996. Given that this information is material for adjudication, the Board finds that a remand is determine the Veteran's dates of service. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Take appropriate action to verify the Veteran's periods of INACDUTRA in 1996, in particular from April 5 to 8, 1996. As part of these efforts, the AOJ must contact the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) to obtain the Veteran's pay / finance records to determine the specific dates of IDT participation and receipt of pay. The AOJ must verify whether the Veteran was on IDT as of April 5-8, 1996. The AOJ should request Form DJMS-RC MMPA Print for the calendar year 1996 or other reports that show pay for April 5-8, 1996. 2. The AOJ must then issue a formal finding regarding each of the Veteran's periods of INACDUTRA in 1996, and describe these periods using specific dates. 3. After completing all indicated development, readjudicate the claims of service connection for a cerebrovascular accident. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case should be furnished to the Veteran, and both the Veteran and her representative should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Abels, 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.