Citation Nr: 21066080
Decision Date: 10/28/21	Archive Date: 10/28/21

DOCKET NO. 18-13 766
DATE: October 28, 2021

REMANDED

The request to reopen the issue of entitlement to service connection for cause of death is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from May 1952 to April 1955.  The Veteran passed away in August 2013.  The appellant pursues this claim as the Veteran's surviving spouse.

In October 2021, the Appellant testified under oath at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.

In addition, the record reflects that the Appellant is over 75 years of age.  See Application for Marriage, February 1960.  Accordingly, the Board will advance this case on the docket.  See 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 20.800(c).

 

The request to reopen the issue of entitlement to service connection for cause of death is remanded.

The Board seeks the following development.  First, based on statements made at the October 2021 hearing the Board finds that there may be outstanding military personnel records to obtain and associate with the claim file.  In particular, the appellant has raised questions regarding the reason for the Veteran's discharge.  See, e.g., Statement, February 2017; and Statement, July 2017.

In obtaining service personnel records, the Board notes that the DD 214 of record lists the Veteran's name as K.H. with no middle initial.  This is also the name used throughout the service treatment records.  Similarly, an application for compensation/pension, filed in April 1957 by the Veteran, shows the name K.H. and "(NMN)".  However, other records show the use of the name W.K.H., for example, a June 1957 Rating Sheet and the February 1960 Application for Marriage.  The Death Certificate identifies W.K.H. and includes a suffix.  In a July 1987 application for compensation/pension, the Veteran listed his name as W.K.H., but noted that he served under the name K.H.  In addition to the multiple names of record, the Board notes that the Veteran's date of birth on the DD 214 and in the April 1957 application for compensation/pension, is different from the date of birth in the February 1960 Application for Marriage, the July 1987 application for compensation/pension, and the Death Certificate.  

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. After securing any necessary consent, obtain any outstanding records, to include any VA and/or private treatment records, and service personnel records pertaining to the issue on appeal.  In particular, the appellant has raised questions regarding the reason for the Veteran's discharge.  See, e.g., Statement, February 2017; and Statement, July 2017.

In obtaining service personnel records, the Board notes that the DD 214 of record lists the Veteran's name as K.H. with no middle initial.  This is also the name used throughout the service treatment records.  Similarly, an application for compensation/pension, filed in April 1957 by the Veteran, shows the name K.H. and "(NMN)".  However, other records show the use of the name W.K.H., for example, a June 1957 Rating Sheet and the February 1960 Application for Marriage.  The Death Certificate identifies W.K.H. and includes a suffix.  In a July 1987 application for compensation/pension, the Veteran listed his name as W.K.H., but noted that he served under the name K.H.  In addition to the multiple names of record, the Board notes that the Veteran's date of birth on the DD 214 and in the April 1957 application for compensation/pension, is different from the date of birth in the February 1960 Application for Marriage, the July 1987 application for compensation/pension, and the Death Certificate.  

All efforts should be documented in the claim file.  If any records could not be obtained, this should be noted in the claim file.

 

2. If upon completion of the above action the issue is denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures.

 

 

E. I. VELEZ

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	K. Foster, 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.