Citation Nr: 21068193 Decision Date: 11/09/21 Archive Date: 11/09/21 DOCKET NO. 15-18 263 DATE: November 9, 2021 REMANDED The issue of an effective date, prior to October 17, 2013, for the grant of service connection for degenerative joint disease of the right wrist is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from September 1965 to August 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an April 2014 rating decision. The Veteran testified before the Board at a hearing in October 2018. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. In a February 2019 decision, the Board denied the claim of an effective date, prior to October 17, 2013, for the grant of service connection for degenerative joint disease of the right wrist. The Veteran appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims (Court). In a June 2020 decision, the Court vacated the February 2019 Board decision and remanded the claim for further proceedings consistent with its decision. In an August 2021 decision, the Board remanded the claim to obtain VA treatment records. The claim has since been returned to the Board for review. Although the Board regrets the delay in yet another remand, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) has not substantially complied with the remand directives and further action is necessary in this regard. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In the August 2021 decision, the Board noted that during the October 2018 Board hearing the Veteran asserted that shortly after discharge from service in 1967 he received medical treatment for his right wrist from Oscar Johnson VA Medical Center in Iron Mountain and Ann Arbor VA Medical Center. The Board determined that the evidence of record included VA examinations from the VA Medical Centers in Iron Mountain and Ann Arbor in 1968, which did not pertain to the wrist; however, the Board found that this evidence indicated that some VA treatment records may not have been associated with the claims file and that a formal finding of unavailability regarding these records had not been made. Upon remand, the Board specifically directed that VA treatment records should be sought since 1967 from Oscar Johnson VA Medical Center in Iron Mountain and Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, and the Board directed that if it is determined that such records are unavailable or that none exist, clearly document the claims file to that effect and notify the Veteran of an inability to obtain these records in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). Following the August 2021 Board decision, additional VA treatment records from 2007 to the present were associated with the claims file in August 2021. The evidence of record does not include any documented efforts to obtain VA treatment records since 1967. Moreover, the evidence of record does not indicate that a formal finding of unavailability has been made regarding these records or that the Veteran has been notified of the inability to obtain these records. Therefore, a remand is necessary to provide the Veteran substantial compliance with the August 2021 Board remand directives. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all treatment records that are not already of record from any VA facility from which the Veteran has received treatment, specifically including records since 1967 from Oscar Johnson VA Medical Center in Iron Mountain and Ann Arbor VA Medical Center. If such records are unavailable, or if it is determined that none exist, clearly document the claims file to that effect and notify the Veteran of an inability to obtain these records, in accordance with 38C.F.R. §3.159(e). In conducting this development, it is noted the current record reflects the Veteran had some interaction with the VA hospital in Iron Mountain in 1973 and 1979. 2. Re-adjudicate the claim. MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Page-Nelson, Associate 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.