Citation Nr: 21064836 Decision Date: 10/21/21 Archive Date: 10/21/21 DOCKET NO. 17-64 761 DATE: October 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot/ankle disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1979 to July 1985, including foreign service. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded (among other decorations) the Army Commendation Medal. The Board denied these appeals in April 2019. In July 2020, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), thereby vacating the Board's decision and remanding the matters for further adjudication. The Board then remanded the claims in November 2020 to obtain new VA nexus opinions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Although a series of opinions were obtained in May 2021, they are wholly inadequate upon which to adjudicate the merits of these appeals; collectively, the examiners fail to account for the Veteran's reports of chronic symptomatology since service; address relevant in-service incidents in their rationales; or indicate that their inability to provide a more definitive opinion is based upon the limitations of the medical community at large. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007); Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382, 390 (2010). While the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay this will cause, remand of the pending matters is required to allow for adequate VA opinions to be obtained. Additionally, the Veteran appears to have performed periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) which are currently unaccounted for in the record. Clarification as to the dates and nature of his full military service is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Conduct appropriate development and then provide a memorandum identifying the exact nature and dates of the Veteran's active and inactive service, including ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. 2. Obtain VA addendum opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's claimed back, bilateral knee, and bilateral foot/ankle disorders. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available for review. If the examiner determines that the requested opinion may not be offered without first examining the Veteran, then schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination. In particular, each examiner is asked to offer medical opinions as to: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that any current disorder began in service, was caused by service, or is otherwise related to service? In doing so, the examiner must explicitly address all relevant notations in the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs), including a November 1977 report of ankle swelling and tenderness; a July 1983 incident where a locker fell on the Veteran's right knee; and a July 1984 motor vehicle accident (MVA) resulting in lumbar strain. The examiner must also explicitly address the Veteran's reports of chronic symptoms since service. If any opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, provide a complete explanation stating why, to include explaining whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that you have exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing answers to the questions. In formulating the opinion, the examiner is advised that the term "at least as likely as not" does not mean "within the realm of possibility." Rather, it means that the weight of the medical evidence for and against the claim is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of the claim as it is to find against it. [CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE] A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions or conclusions expressed. It should be noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Kovarovic, 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.