Citation Nr: 21069564 Decision Date: 11/18/21 Archive Date: 11/18/21 DOCKET NO. 17-07 092 DATE: November 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left arm disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for neurological migraines is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for loss of feeling in left foot is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for loss of feeling in right foot is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from February 1967 to February 1987. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript is of record. At the hearing, the Veteran requested that the Board hold the record open for 60 days to allow for the submission of additional evidence. The undersigned granted the Veteran's request. The Board finds that a remand is necessary in order to ensure that VA's duty to assist the Veteran has been met. In a June 2015 letter to the Veteran, the RO stated that it was unable to obtain the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) or military personnel file. The RO noted that it had requested these records from the National Personnel Records Center. Subsequently, the Veteran submitted a VA 21-4142 (Authorization for Release of Information). In that form, the Veteran reported treatment at the U.S. Army Hospital in Nuremberg, Germany from 1968 to 1971 and from 1980 to 1987. The Veteran also reported treatment at the U.S. Army Hospital in Wurzburg, Germany from 1996 to 2008. Finally, the Veteran reported treatment at the U.S. Army Hospital in Heidelberg, Germany, from 1972 to 1980. The RO then submitted a request to obtain those records through the VA Private Medical Records Retrieval Center (PMR). The PMR rejected the request because the providers listed are non-private. It does not appear that the RO made any other attempts to obtain these records. Remand is therefore required to obtain the Veteran's STRs and military personnel file. Additionally, the Veteran testified that he receives private treatment for many of his claimed disabilities. On remand, the RO must request a release form for such records and must make all attempts necessary to obtain any available private treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain outstanding VA treatment records dated since May 2016 and associate them with the claims file. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for any private provider from whom he received treatment for any claimed disability. Make two requests for the authorized records from any identified providers or facilities, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 3. Conduct exhaustive development to obtain the Veteran's complete service personnel and service treatment records, to include records from his time in Germany. Such development should specifically include directly contacting the medical facilities in Nuremberg, Wurzburg, and Heidelberg. Document all attempts to obtain these records. 4. After the above development is completed and after associating all records obtained with the Veteran's claims file, conduct any other development deemed necessary. Such development may include obtaining VA examinations and/or opinions. Then, readjudicate the claims. If any claim remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. Then, return the claim/s to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Roya Bahrami, 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.