Citation Nr: 21064127 Decision Date: 10/19/21 Archive Date: 10/19/21 DOCKET NO. 18-19 939 DATE: October 19, 2021 REMANDED The issue of whether the appellant meets the basic eligibility requirements for entitlement to the receipt of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant seeks eligibility for entitlement to VA disability compensation benefits based on her service in the United States Navy Reserve from January 1987 to January 1995. In June 2021, the appellant testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of that hearing is of record. In order to establish basic eligibility for VA disability compensation benefits, a claimant must first establish "veteran" status. See D'Amico v. West, 209 F.3d 1322, 1326 (2000) ("[a] claim for veteran's disability benefits has five elements: (1) veteran status; (2) existence of a disability; (3) service connection of the disability; (4) degree of disability; and (5) effective date of the disability"). A veteran is defined as a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable. 38 U.S.C. § 101(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d). With respect to claims based on Reserve service, active military, naval, or air service includes: (1) active duty; (2) any period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty; and (3) any period of inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty, or from an acute myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident occurring during such training. In this case, the appellant seeks entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder (claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)), which she asserts is due to event(s) that occurred during periods of ACDUTRA and/or INACDUTRA. It does not appear the dates of the appellant's ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA have been verified. However, service treatment records appear to indicate the appellant served on INACDUTRA on May 16-17, 1987, June 20, 1987, and July 26, 1987. The appellant sought treatment for symptoms of chronic fatigue and occasional sleep disturbances. See May 1987 Chronological Record of Medical Care. The service treatment provider noted that the appellant seemed depressed. Additionally, service treatment records appear to indicate the appellant served on ACDUTRA from December 19, 1987 to January 15, 1988. In April 1988 correspondence, the appellant requested transfer to the Standby Reserve due to personal hardship. See also April 1988 correspondence from Dr. G.S. (indicating the appellant was advised to keep stress and physical activity to a minimum). The appellant reported that her civilian employment involved working at night and on weekends from 7pm to 3am. See also undated correspondence from appellant's civilian employer (verifying night shift work). The appellant reported hardship due to losing two days of compensation from her civilian employment on Reserve duty weekends. The appellant reported that performing her civilian employment and weekend Reserve duty at the same time required her to go without sleep, which resulted in difficulty with adjusting sleep habits, and affected her performance at both jobs. The appellant reported that she enjoyed her Reserve time, and hoped to return to a drilling status. The appellant was transferred to the Standby Reserve effective April 25, 1988. The appellant submitted a Social Security Administration (SSA) decision awarding disability benefits for an anxiety disorder from May 30, 1994. See April 1996 SSA decision. While the appellant submitted the SSA decision, it does not appear that an attempt has been made to obtain the medical evidence that was considered in reaching the April 1996 SSA decision. In consideration of the current evidence of record and the appellant's assertions, the Board finds there is a reasonable possibility that the medical records upon which SSA based its decision could help substantiate the appellant's claim. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (VA's duty to assist includes obtaining relevant Social Security records). Accordingly, the Board finds remand is necessary to attempt to obtain the medical records upon which SSA based its April 1996 decision. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to verify all periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA during the appellant's period of service in the Selected Reserve from January 1987 to April 1988. If necessary, a request should be made to Navy Personnel Command and/or the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Notify the appellant and her representative of all efforts made to obtain verification of dates of service in the Selected Reserve, and any responses. 2. With any assistance needed from the appellant, attempt to obtain copies of any medical records upon which the April 1996 SSA decision was based. Notify the appellant and her representative of all efforts made to obtain SSA medical records, and any responses. 3. Following the above development, and any additional development deemed necessary (to include obtaining a medical opinion and/or examination, if warranted), readjudicate the appeal. If the benefit sought remains denied, issue the appellant a supplemental statement of the case and inform the appellant of her appeal options. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Mask, 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.