Citation Nr: 21070499 Decision Date: 11/24/21 Archive Date: 11/24/21 DOCKET NO. 15-36 132 DATE: November 24, 2021 REMANDED Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for head trauma is remanded. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for nasal problems, other than rhinitis and sinusitis, to include a deviated septum, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1990 to April 1991, from August 2002 to December 2003, and from August 2004 to December 2005. He had additional service in the Texas Army National Guard, which included a verified period of active duty for training from July 1984 to October 1984. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2012 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In July 2018, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. In March 2019, the Board remanded the case to the AOJ for further development. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. The Board notes that the appeal originally included the issue of whether new and material evidence had been received to reopen a claim for service connection for sinusitis. In an April 2021 rating decision, the AOJ granted service connection for rhinitis (claimed as nasal problems) and sinusitis. The AOJ's grant of service connection for these issues constitutes a full award of the benefits sought on appeal. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, these matters are no longer on appeal, and no further consideration is necessary. In the March 2019 remand, the Board remanded the case to the AOJ to verify the Veteran's periods of service and to obtain any outstanding service treatment records and service personnel records pertaining to those periods. Specifically, the Board noted that, during the July 2018 hearing, the Veteran reported that he sustained head trauma during annual training in approximately 1984 to 1985 when a hatch hit him in the back of the head during a gas exercise at Fort Hood. In addition, during the July 2018 hearing, the Veteran reported that he broke his nose when he fell and hit his face on the bumper of a five-ton truck during a period of active duty for training in 1999 in Texarkana. He stated that a line of duty determination was made when he first injured his nose, but the Board found that the record was not associated with the claims file. Following the remand, the AOJ requested the Veteran's complete service treatment records, to include records pertaining to his service from 1984 to 1985 and from 1997 to 1999. The AOJ also requested any line of duty determination related to a 1997 fall in which the Veteran injured his nose during training. See May 2019 and July 2020 email correspondence, October 2020 DPRIS requests. The AOJ received copies of service personnel records and service treatment records; however, the records did not pertain to the requested periods of service. In addition, a line of duty determination was not included in the records. In addition, in the March 2019 remand, the Board specifically directed the AOJ to verify whether the Veteran had periods of active duty, active duty for training (ACDUTRA), or inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) from 1984 to 1985 and from 1997 to 1999. If so, the AOJ was directed to determine whether such service was federalized. There is no evidence in the claims file that these determinations were made. For these reasons, a remand is required to ensure compliance with the prior remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand order). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), the Records Management Center (RMC), the Texas Army National Guard, the Veteran's unit, or any other appropriate location, to request complete service treatment and personnel records for his service from 1984 to 1985 and from 1997 to 1999. A specific request should be made for any line of duty determination related to a 1997 fall in which the Veteran injured his nose during training. The AOJ should also verify whether the Veteran had periods of active duty, ACDUTRA, or INACDUTRA from 1984 to 1985 and from 1997 to 1999. If so, the AOJ should determine whether such service was federalized. 2. The AOJ should conduct any other development that may be indicated. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Osegueda, 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.