Citation Nr: 21070179 Decision Date: 11/23/21 Archive Date: 11/23/21 DOCKET NO. 16-31 966 DATE: November 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1987 to August 1990 and February 2, 1991 to February 25, 1991. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). On remand, a September 2021 rating decision granted service connection for a back and bilateral knee disabilities. As service connection has been granted, the claims are not before the Board. In March 2021, the Board remanded the claim for service connection for sinusitis to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development. For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the development sought as part of the March 2021 remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 1. Service Connection for Sinusitis is Remanded. The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for sinusitis. After review of the evidence, both lay and medical, a remand is necessary to provide the Board a complete record to base its decision upon. In June 2021, the Veteran underwent a VA examination to determine the etiology of any sinus disabilities. The VA examiner indicated that the Veteran did not have and had never been diagnosed with a sinus disability and opined the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred during service. The rationale provided was that the claims file was silent for any sinus condition. The Board notes that on the examination form, the examiner indicated x-ray testing of the sinus was conducted on 6/11/2021, but in the opinion indicated testing was conducted 6/11/2012. The Board is unable to locate a June 2021 x-ray in the record. Further, the examiner failed to address the January 2021 letter from Dr. K.M. that indicated the Veteran was treated for sinusitis. As such, a remand for a new examination is necessary. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). However, the Board also notes that on remand the Veteran provided neither records pertinent to the claim for service connection for sinusitis or authorization for any records to be obtained. The Veteran is reminded that VA's duty to assist is a two-way street, and he cannot wait passively in those situations where his assistance to VA is necessary. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and ask him to provide sufficient information and necessary authorization in order to obtain copies of any outstanding records of treatment by VA or non-VA health care providers for any of the claimed disabilities. Particular efforts should be made to obtain any treatment records for sinusitis from Dr. K.M. See January 2021 Letter. The letter should invite the Veteran to submit any pertinent medical evidence in support of his claims. If the Veteran provides the necessary information and authorizations, obtain any outstanding clinical records and incorporate them into the electronic claims file. 2. Associate any VA treatment records with the electronic claims file. 3. After completion of the above-specified development. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the etiology of any sinus disability. The examiner must have the appropriate expertise and be provided access to the electronic claims file. The examiner must indicate review of the claims file in the examination report and conduct any necessary testing. The examiner is asked to provide the following opinions: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current sinus disability had onset in service, is etiologically directly related to his active service? The VA examiner must comment on the Veteran's reports of in-service symptoms during refueling duties and the January 2021 letter from Dr. K.M. H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Teague, 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.