Citation Nr: 21071037 Decision Date: 11/29/21 Archive Date: 11/29/21 DOCKET NO. 18-09 570 DATE: November 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anger, frustration, fidgety, periods of silence, paranoid ways, and always on guard, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for insomnia is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for vision problems is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from June 1978 to June 1981. He served on active duty with the United States Marine Corps from November 1986 to November 1987. This matter comes before the Board on appeal from a December 2013 Regional Office (RO) rating decision. In March 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. This claim was previously denied in a July 2020 Board decision. The Veteran subsequently appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In June 2021, the parties submitted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand requesting that the issues be vacated and remanded for compliance with the terms of the Joint Motion. The Court granted this motion in a June 2021 Order returning the case to the Board for further adjudication. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, claimed as PTSD, anger, frustration, fidgety, periods of silence, paranoid ways, and always on guard, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for insomnia is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for vision problems is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The June 2021 Joint Motion directs that this claim be remanded to obtain several sets of identified VA medical records. First, the Joint Motion notes that "The record contains radiologic reports from 1991 to 1998 but does not include any of the accompanying treatment records." Second, the Joint Motion notes that "[A]n April 2013 VA treatment record notes that Appellant was hospitalized two times in 1995 and 1997 but the record contains only one hospitalization discharge record." The Joint Motion specifically identifies a November 27, 1995, discharge summary. The Joint Motion notes that the November 1995 discharge summary states that the Veteran had had eight previous hospitalizations and had completed the program twice, with the last hospitalization having been in July 1995. The Joint Motion notes that none of these hospitalizations is documented in the record. Third, the Joint Motion notes that the "Appellant also reported that he received treatment from the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Little Rock, Arkansas, from 1989 to 1995.... However, VA requested records from the VAMC in Little Rock only for the period from June 9, 1994, to March 12, 1997." It notes that an April 2017 report of general information certifies that the Little Rock records from June 9, 1994, to March 12, 1997, do not exist. A remand is necessary to complete all appropriate steps to attempt to obtain these records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain all relevant VA and private treatment records not currently associated with the claims file, to include any VA medical records that were created since the Veteran's records were last obtained. In particular, please conduct the necessary development to attempt to obtain the following VA medical records, which have been identified by the parties in the June 2021 Joint Motion for Partial Remand: (a) Treatment records dated from 1991 to 1998 that accompany radiologic reports from that period. (b) Records of the nine psychiatric hospitalizations, the two most recent of these records being from hospitalizations dated in July 1995 and November 1997. (c) Records of treatment from the Little Rock VAMC dated from 1989 to 1995. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Elizabeth Jalley, 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.