Citation Nr: 21067026 Decision Date: 11/03/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 17-20 755 DATE: November 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability, claimed as right heel bone spur, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from May 1987 to August 1988, June 1989 to August 1989, December 1990 to May 1991, and January 2003 to October 2003, with additional years of service in the Air National Guard. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran provided hearing testimony before the undersigned at a virtual Board hearing in June 2021. A transcript of that hearing is within the Veteran's claims file. The Veteran contends he has a right foot disability that initially manifested during his military service. In April 2012, he submitted a statement indicating that during training in 1987, he was provided shoes one-half size too small and was required to march daily in these shoes. He indicated severe blisters developed as a result. The Veteran confirmed that he did not seek medical attention at the time, but wore bandages. He reported the blisters did not heal and subsequently a bump on his right heel developed, which never went away and became more prominent as time passed. He reported that by 1997 he had a job with medical insurance and was able to seek medical treatment. The claims file includes the November 1997 operative report showing a right heel spur being removed. The Veteran has consistently reported this history throughout the pendency of this claim, to include at the time of the June 2013 VA examination, on his June 2014 notice of disagreement form, in a January 2015 statement, on his August 2016 VA Form 9, and at his June 2021 Board hearing. In July 2021, the Veteran's brother submitted a statement in support of the Veteran's claim. The brother recalled the Veteran returning home from training in 1987 reporting getting bad blisters on his feet from marching, which did not fully heal and left scars and bumps. The Veteran's brother also indicated, "He mentioned this several times in the years following." The Veteran's brother also recalled the Veteran telling him at the time of the 1997 surgery that he had the bone spur ever since he had the bad blisters during his 1987 training. This statement certainly corroborates the Veteran's reported history of symptoms. The RO, however, denied this claim because there was no indication of the right heel spur in the Veteran's service treatment records. No consideration was made to his reported history. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2013. The examiner documented the Veteran's reported history of symptoms and confirmed his medically documented history, but did not adequately consider the lay evidence in his rationale. Remand, therefore, is necessary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran's right heel spur is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran's military service. The clinician should consider the Veteran's competent reports related to his history of symptoms when rendering this opinion. The Veteran provided statements related to this medical history in April 2012, at the time of the June 2013 VA examination, on his June 2014 notice of disagreement form, in a January 2015 statement, on his August 2016 VA Form 9, and at his June 2021 Board hearing. The Veteran's brother also submitted a statement in July 2021 corroborating the Veteran's reported history. These statements should be considered. The clinician providing this report should provide a rationale for any opinion expressed. The Board leaves it up to the clinician providing the report as to whether another physical examination needs to be scheduled. 2. After completing the above action, to include any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the action taken in the preceding paragraph, the Veteran's claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. S. Sorathia Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Adamson, 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.