Citation Nr: 21064590 Decision Date: 10/20/21 Archive Date: 10/20/21 DOCKET NO. 14-19 523 DATE: October 20, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for a back disability is remanded. Service connection for bruxism is remanded. Service connection for hypertension is remanded. Service connection for a right testicle disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force (USAF) from June 1964 to June 1968, including service in the Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) during the Vietnam War. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2011 rating decision of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) that declined to reopen claims for service connection for a back disability, hypertension, and a right testicle disability, and it denied service connection for bruxism. The Veteran requested the opportunity to participate in a hearing before the Board in May 2014. In April 2019, the Veteran withdrew his request for such a hearing, and the Board finds the Veteran's hearing request to have been withdrawn. This appeal was most recently before the Board in November 2020, when it reopened and remanded the underlying service connection claims. The Board's remand noted that while records relating to the Veteran's active duty service with the USAF from June 1964 to June 1968 were of record, the Veteran had additionally reported, for example in July 2006, that he served with the Alabama National Guard (ANG) in the early 1980s. The Board, observing that records from the ANG had not been requested or otherwise associated with the claims file, directed the AOJ to attempt to obtain a complete copy of the Veteran's service treatment and personnel records from his period of service with the ANG. The AOJ was to document all such requests for information and to verify the Veteran's dates of active duty service for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty service for training (INACDUTRA). Following the Board's remand, in November 2020, the AOJ requested a complete copy of records relating to the Veteran's active duty service with the USAF from June 1964 to June 1968. Records relating to this period of active duty service had already been associated with the claims file. In March 2021, the AOJ requested that the Veteran provide additional information relating to his dates of service and unit assignments with the ANG; to date, the Veteran has not responded to this correspondence. The AOJ undertook no further efforts to obtain such records, including making a request for such records from an official repository, and it did not inform the Veteran that it had been unable to obtain records relating to the Veteran's service with the ANG. As such, the Board finds that the AOJ has not substantially complied with its November 2020 remand directives. While the AOJ requested a complete copy of the Veteran's personnel and treatment records, such request related to the Veteran's period of active duty with the USAF from June 1964 to June 1968. The AOJ did not request records from an official repository relating to the Veteran's alleged service during the early 1980s with the ANG. On remand, the AOJ must undertake all necessary additional efforts to obtain the Veteran's outstanding records with the ANG. The AOJ must inform the Veteran of all efforts undertaken to obtain such records, including whether it is ultimately unable to obtain these records. This matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Request a complete copy of the Veteran's personnel and treatment records relating to his service with the ANG in the early 1980s. The AOJ should document all efforts to obtain this information, its efforts should conclude only with a positive or negative response from the appropriate repository of such information, and the Veteran should be informed of all actions taken to obtain such information. If records from the ANG are obtained, the AOJ should verify all dates of the Veteran's ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA service. 2. Then, if additional records are obtained pursuant to the first remand directive, obtain the following addendum opinions from the June 2021 examiner, or from another examiner of appropriate expertise. The Veteran should receive an additional physical examination only if the examiner determines such is required in order to render the requested opinions. The examiner should offer the following opinions: (a.) Is it at least as likely than not (that is, a 50 percent likelihood or greater) that the Veteran's back disability was caused by any incident of his service, to include an in-service injury? (b.) Is it at least as likely than not (that is, a 50 percent likelihood or greater) that the Veteran's hypertension disability was caused by any incident of his service? 3. Then, if additional pertinent records are obtained pursuant to the first remand directive, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of a bruxism and right testicle disability. After physically examining the Veteran, conducting all appropriate testing, and considering the Veteran's lay statements, the examiner should offer the following opinions: (a.) Is it at least as likely than not (that is, a 50 percent likelihood or greater) that the Veteran's bruxism disability was caused by any incident of his service? (b.) Is it at least as likely than not (that is, a 50 percent likelihood or greater) that the Veteran's right testicle disability was caused by any incident of his service? MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J.A. Flynn, 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.