Citation Nr: 21063812 Decision Date: 10/18/21 Archive Date: 10/18/21 DOCKET NO. 18-43 153 DATE: October 18, 2021 REMANDED Whether the appellant has status as a veteran for the purpose of entitlement to VA benefits. REFERRED The issues of service connection for tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, diabetic neuropathy of the upper and lower limbs, dyslipidemia, chronic cervical spine pain, chronic myositis of the paracervical and paralumbar spine muscles, chronic low back pain, status post adenocarcinoma of the prostate, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were raised in a March 2015 informal claim, followed by a formal claim received for the same issues in May 2015, both of which reference a March 2015 private medical opinion listing the claimed disabilities. The Board previously referred these matters in its March 2019 remand. These service connection issues are again referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for adjudication as the outcome of those determinations may directly affect the appellant's entitlement to veteran status. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant served a verified period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA), as a member of the United States Army Reserve from June 1957 to January 1958. Additional periods of ACDUTRA and inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) are shown by the appellant's Reserve retirement points statements between August 1978 and August 1997. The case is on appeal from a September 2015 decision. The Board previously remanded this matter in March 2019. In July 2020, the appellant's filed a statement asking for a writ of mandamus from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) to order VA to comply by expediting a decision. According to the Court's website, an order was entered on August 2020 dismissing without prejudice the appellant's petition for extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus. Whether the appellant has status as a veteran for the purpose of entitlement to VA benefits. The Board's prior remand directed development regarding the appellant's periods of service. At present, it appears there has been substantial compliance with that action. The Board also directed the AOJ to readjudicate the issue on appeal, including multiple inextricably intertwined issues of service connection. The Board explained that the appellant could achieve veteran status if it was established that he became disabled as a result of a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during a period of active duty for training,or disabled from injury incurredor aggravated in the line of duty during a period of inactive duty training. To this end, the Board referred the issues of service connection for tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, diabetic neuropathy of the upper and lower limbs, dyslipidemia, chronic cervical spine pain, chronic myositis of the paracervical and paralumbar spine muscles, chronic low back pain, status post prostate adenocarcinoma, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and PTSD. The Board explained that remand was requiredfor the AOJ to adjudicate the issues of service connection before the Board could reach a determination on the matter of status as a veteran. Upon remand, the AOJ did not adjudicate the intertwined claims of service connection as directed by the Board. Another remand is required to allow the AOJ to do so. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: After adjudicating the inextricably intertwined issues of service connection listed herein above, readjudicate the instant issue. If veteran status is not established, send the appellant a supplemental statement of the case and provide an opportunity to respond. If the matter is not granted in full, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Bosely, 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.