Citation Nr: 21068859 Decision Date: 11/15/21 Archive Date: 11/15/21 DOCKET NO. 12-01 559 DATE: November 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an upper back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left arm disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a head injury is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from September 1964 to September 1967. Although the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) regrets the additional delay, remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claims so that he is afforded every possible consideration. This Board has advanced this case on the docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(3). 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye condition is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for an upper back condition is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left arm condition is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a head injury is remanded. These claims were previously remanded to obtain outstanding service treatment records consistent with the Health Record Abstract found in the claims file, and specifically to seek records from the Veteran's service in Korea between March 1965 and April 1966. The Board recognizes that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) submitted a personnel information exchange system request for the Veteran's entire service treatment records and has made a formal finding that the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) contained no records pertaining to the Veteran's medical treatment in Korea. In the prior remands, the Board instructed the AOJ to contact the Army base(s) in Korea at which the Veteran was stationed in an attempt to obtain the records. The AOJ was directed to specifically obtain records associated with the Health Record Abstract's listing of treatment at Dispensary #9 from May to June 1966 and Dispensary #2 in October 1966. If the AOJ was unable to obtain these records after reasonable efforts had been exhausted, they were to place in the claims file a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain them would be futile. According to the claims file, the AOJ initiated a request for Korea records in June 2020, with followup requests in July 2020 as well as March, April and May 2021. August 2021 correspondence indicates that the Veteran's records had been uploaded to the claims file. These uploaded documents include the Veteran's personnel records as well as his entry and separation examinations, all of which were already attached to the claims file. As the AOJ did not make a formal determination regarding the requested medical records, it is unclear whether the Board's remand directives were substantially complied with, and remand is required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the Veteran's claims, including any VA and private treatment records. 2. The AOJ should attempt to obtain outstanding records directly from the Army base(s) in Korea where the Veteran was stationed as a member of Company D of the 51st Signal Battalion, 8th Army from March 1965 to April 1966. Specifically, records associated with the Health Record Abstract of Service listing treatment at Dispensary #9 from May to June 1966 and Dispensary #2 in October 1966. (continued on the next page) If these records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in U.S.C. §5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R.§3.159(e). T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. C. Schumacher, 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.