Citation Nr: 21066983 Decision Date: 11/03/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 16-01 063 DATE: November 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral shin splints is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral lower extremity disability, to include numbness, paresthesias, and swelling of the lower legs and feet, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1980 to August 1986. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). By way of background, these issues were denied by the Board in May 2019. The Veteran appealed the denial to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In June 2020, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), CAVC vacated the Board's May 2019 decision and remanded the case for further action. This matter was remanded in November 2020 and has now been reassigned to the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral shin splints is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral lower extremity disability, to include numbness, paresthesias, and swelling of the lower legs and feet, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. The Board notes that there appears to be a discrepancy as to when the Veteran first received treatment by VA and at which facility. The June 2020 JMR cited to the Veteran's declaration that he received medical care at the VA hospital in "Mpls, Minnesota" from 1987 to 1995. See November 2016 lay statement. In December 2016, VA requested the Veteran's "archived and perpetualized records" from the Minneapolis VA Medical Center (VAMC). The Minneapolis VAMC reported that "[c]harts were transferred to Iowa City VAMC" on July 29, 1996. See December 2016 document from Janesville, Wisconsin VA evidence intake center. No further efforts were made to obtain these records. The November 2020 Board remand directed that such records be obtained. Despite these records being listed as evidence in the August 2021 supplemental statement of the case, the claim file does not include such records. Accordingly, another remand is required. The Board also notes that an October 1993 VA Form 10-7131 states that there are no inpatient or outpatient treatment records from the Minneapolis VAMC from January 1, 1992, "to date." In a separate August 1997 claim, the Veteran reported that his "only treatment since 1993 is VA." There are three documents from the Minneapolis VAMC, one in November 1991 and the others in October 1994. Accordingly, a remand to obtain any and all VA treatment records is required. VA treatment records in July and December 2007 also refer to the Veteran being treated at a local emergency department, possibly Fairfield/Jefferson County Hospital, for his right ankle and bilateral leg disability. Such records have not been obtained. As private treatment records are likely to contain pertinent information related to the Veteran's claim, they should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify the provider(s) of all evaluations and treatment he has received for the disabilities on appeal since his discharge from service (records of which are not already associated with the claim file or established to be unavailable), and to provide all releases necessary for VA to obtain the complete clinical records of all such treatment or evaluation, to specifically include records from Fairfield/Jefferson County Hospital. He should also be requested to specifically identify when the disabilities on appeal were first diagnosed and the diagnosing physician and/or facility. With his cooperation (by providing releases), the RO should obtain for the record complete clinical records of all such evaluations and treatment. If any private records identified are not received pursuant to the RO's request, the Veteran should be so notified and advised that ultimately it is his responsibility to ensure that private records are received. 2. Obtain and associate with the file any outstanding VA treatment records. In particular, obtain and associate the following records: Minneapolis VAMC records for treatment received from 1987 through 1995. Please note, it was indicated in 2012 that the Veteran's Minneapolis records were transferred to the Iowa City VAMC in July 1996. All appropriate efforts should be taken to obtain and associate with the file these VA treatment records. If any such records cannot be obtained because they do not exist or further efforts to obtain them would be futile, then the Veteran should be notified of such in a manner consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 3. If upon completion of the above action the issues remain 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 T. Matta, 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.