Citation Nr: 21065660 Decision Date: 10/27/21 Archive Date: 10/27/21 DOCKET NO. 03-12 092A DATE: October 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hammertoes, to include as secondary to onychomycosis, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for muscle and joint disorders of the left wrist, left thumb, right wrist, right elbow, left hip, right hip, and right knee, to include myalgia, myositis and arthralgia, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an upper gastrointestinal tract disorder, to include gastroesophageal disorder (GERD), hiatal hernia with esophagitis and chronic reflux, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a lower gastrointestinal tract disorder, to include gallbladder and pancreatic disorder (claimed as gallbladder polyps and inflammation of pancreas (pancreatitis)), is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, claimed as presbyopia, refractive error, hypermetropia, and residuals of a conjunctival hemorrhage with left eye vision loss, to include as secondary to an upper gastrointestinal tract disorder, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea, to include as secondary to an upper gastrointestinal tract disorder, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for surgical scars located on the chest, stomach, and left lower extremity, to include as secondary to disorders of the cervical and lumbar spine, left knee, and upper gastrointestinal tract, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a headache disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for cardiovascular disorder other than hypertension, to specifically include coronary artery disease, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability with arthritis (claimed as heel spurs), to include as secondary to onychomycosis, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1983 to January 1987, with additional periods of service, including active duty for training (ACDUTRA), in the Alabama Army National Guard. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2005 rating decision that denied the Veteran's bilateral hammertoes claim, a November 2007 rating decision that denied the Veteran's left foot claim, and a June 2010 rating decision that denied the Veteran's remaining claims on appeal. Following the issuance of the March 2005 and November 2007 rating decisions, but prior to the June 2010 rating decision, the Veteran testified at a November 2008 Travel Board hearing in support of his bilateral hammertoes claim. Thereafter, in February 2009, the Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who had presided over the Travel Board hearing remanded this issue for additional development. Before the requested development could be completed, however, that VLJ retired from the Board. Under such circumstances, the Board's standard practice is to send a notice letter advising the Veteran of his right to an additional hearing before a different VLJ. See 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b) (due process requires that a VLJ who conducts a hearing on appeal participate in any subsequent decision regarding that appeal). However, in this case, the Veteran was provided the requisite hearing-clarification notice at a subsequent Board proceeding, which was conducted via videoconference by the undersigned. 38 U.S.C. § 7107 (c), (e)(2). During that December 2012 hearing, the Veteran elected to submit additional testimony with respect to the hammertoes claim. He also testified in connection with the other above-captioned issues. These issues were before the Board in June 2013 and January 2018 when they were remanded for additional development. The prior remands directed the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to verify the specific dates of the Veteran's service, to include all periods of active and inactive duty training, in the Alabama Army National Guard. If it was determined that this information did not exist and that further search efforts would be futile, a formal finding of unavailability was to be entered pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2), and the Veteran was to be duly notified of any such formal finding. Unfortunately, this was not accomplished, and remand is once again required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In this regard, although the AOJ obtained additional National Guard service treatment records and the Veteran's retirement points statement from 1983 to December 2018 in response to the January 2018 remand, these records are insufficient to clearly identify the actual dates and nature of his ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA service. On remand, the AOJ must undertake appropriate action to verify the nature of the Veteran's National Guard service from 1988 until his retirement in April 2009. The 2018 remand also directed the AOJ to afford the Veteran an appropriate VA examination to determine the etiology of his current upper and lower extremity muscle and joint disorders. Although he underwent VA examinations subsequent to the remand, none of the opinions are adequate because the Veteran's confirmed National Guard service has yet to be considered. Therefore, after the dates of such service is confirmed, an addendum medical opinion should be obtained as to the etiology of the Veteran's upper and lower extremity muscle and joint disorders. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Verify all periods of the Veteran's ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA Alabama Army National Guard service from 1988 until his retirement in April 2009. Service records providing retirement points are insufficient in this regard. Prepare a summary of such dates, or document for the record the reasons why the production of such a summary of service dates is not possible. If it is determined that any of the above records or information does not exist and that further search efforts would be futile, a formal finding of unavailability should be entered pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(2). The Veteran and his attorney should duly notified of any such formal finding and be given an opportunity to respond 2. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, forward the Veteran's claims file to an appropriate VA examiner who must review the claims file (to include this remand and the summary of the dates of the Veteran's service) and provide an addendum opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran's current upper and lower extremity muscle and joint disorders (including myalgia, myositis and arthralgia). The examiner must provide the following opinion: (a) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's upper and lower extremity muscle and joint disorders (including myalgia, myositis and arthralgia) had its onset in, or is otherwise caused by, a period of active service, active duty for training, or inactive duty for training. The examiner must address the Veteran's statements that these disabilities have persisted since service. The examiner must explain the rationale for any opinion given. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, he/she should so state and provide an explanation as to the reason(s) therefor. If the examiner determines that the requested opinion may not be provided without a physical examination of the Veteran, then such should be scheduled. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Fletcher, Kathleen 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.