Citation Nr: 21072012 Decision Date: 12/02/21 Archive Date: 12/02/21 DOCKET NO. 17-55 650 DATE: December 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1998 to December 2000 and from February 2005 to May 2006. This matter came before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veteran's Law Judge during a March 2020 hearing. The transcript of the hearing is of record. In March 2020 the Board remanded the issue on appeal for further development. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability The March 2020 Board remand asked for a new VA lumbar spine examination. A VA examination was conducted in August 2020, however, the examiner concluded that the examination was not valid for rating purposes, noting inconsistencies and suboptimal effort. No attempts were made to obtain a new VA lumbar spine evaluation with test results that were valid for rating purposes. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand directives and another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Further, the Board notes that the Veteran served in the 82nd Airborne Division of the United States Army, to include combat service in Iraq. In a December 2015 statement, the Veteran said that jumping worsened his low back disability. In a December 2016 statement, the Veteran said that his service in Iraq aggravated his low back disability. During the March 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he performed 22 or more jumps during service. Upon remand, the VA examiner must consider and discuss the impact of these jumps on the Veteran's low back disability. Moreover, in his September 2021 appellate brief, the Veteran's representative submitted several articles related to combat loads. Upon remand, the VA examiner must consider and discuss the potential impact of combat loads on the Veteran's low back disability. Finally, during the March 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he received private treatment for his low back disability. The March 2020 Board remand asked for the Veteran's private treatment records to be associated with the claim file. One attempt was made in March 2020 to obtain authorization to release these records. Upon remand, further attempts should be made to obtain the Veteran's private treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for his private provider(s) that have treated him for his low back disability since January 2015. Make two requests for the authorized records. 2. After the development in (1), schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination, to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's low back disability. The examiner must opine whether it was at least as likely as not aggravated (non-temporary increase in severity) by service and, if so, whether any increase in severity was clearly and unmistakably (undebatable) due to its natural progress. The examiner should review the file and address the following: (a.) The September 2019 letter from Dr. Davis, noting no chronic back issues prior to service. (b.) The article entitled, "The Overweight Infantryman," found at https://mwi.usma.edu/the-overweight-infantryman/ In providing the opinion, the examiner should consider and discuss any lay statements of record, to include the Veteran's March 2020 hearing testimony and the Veteran's December 2015 Notice of Disagreement. 3. If upon completion of the above action the appeal remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Y. Akkad 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.