Citation Nr: 21072576 Decision Date: 12/03/21 Archive Date: 12/03/21 DOCKET NO. 18-55 468 DATE: December 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1946 to September 1947. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from June 2012 and March 2015 rating decisions issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a March 2019 decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for PTSD and a low back disorder. The Veteran appealed the denials to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In April 2020, the parties agreed to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) that was granted by the Court. The JMR formally requested that the Court vacate the Board's March 2019 denials and remand the matters to the Board for consideration consistent with the terms of the JMR. The Board remanded the matters in September 2020 for further development. The case is now again before the Board for further appellate action. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is remanded. The Board finds that a remand is necessary before a decision on the merits of the claims can be reached. In December 2017, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-0781, Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for PTSD, in which he reported that his PTSD and back disorder are due to being pinned under a jeep during his active service. The Veteran reported that the incident happened between August 26, 1946 and September 13, 1946 when he was assigned to the 463rd Army Air Force Base Unit, Squadron M-2, at Geiger Field, Washington. The parties to the April 2020 JMR found that the Board erred in its March 2019 decision by failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases as to whether VA fulfilled its heightened duty to assist where, as in this case, the claimant's records are lost or destroyed in its March 2019 Board decision. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 370 (2005) (Where a claimant's records are lost or destroyed, VA has a "heightened" duty to assist the claimant that includes advising him that his records were lost, advising him to submit alternative forms of evidence to support his claim, and assisting him in obtaining this alternative evidence); Russo v. Brown 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996) (finding that the Board had a heightened duty "to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt"). In September 2020, the Board remanded the claims to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional attempts to obtain sick/morning reports for the Veteran's period of active service from appropriate authorities. As background, prior to the Board's March 2019 denial of the claims, the AOJ requested the Veteran's complete medical and dental records from the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC) for the Veteran's period of active duty from March 1946 to September 1947. In a January 2018 response, the NPRC reported the Veteran's records were fire-related, and, therefore, service treatment records and Army surgeon general's office records were not available. In January 2018, the AOJ advised the Veteran that his military records may have been destroyed as a result of a July 1973 fire at the NPRC, and requested the Veteran provide additional information in support of his claims for entitlement to service connection for a low back disability and PTSD. In March 2018, the Veteran submitted a statement in which he reported being pinned underneath a jeep for several hours in 1946 at Geiger Field. He stated he was given outpatient treatment for a back injury on base. Several weeks later, he was assigned to the "506 and 608 control and warning group" at March Field, California. He indicated he was on medication for his back periodically while assigned to March Field. He was discharged from this station in September 1947. In March 2018, the AOJ submitted a second request to the NPRC for the Veteran's complete medical and dental records from March 1946 to September 1947. The request noted, if those records are not found, a search should be performed for the sick/morning reports from the Veteran's unit at Geiger Field, Washington, for the period from August to September 1946. In a May 2018 response, the NPRC indicated that it had been determined that the name of the Veteran's company, battery, or battalion were required to complete the request. There is no indication in the record that the RO followed up with the Veteran to request his company, battery, or battalion. In June 2018, the AOJ submitted another PIES request for sick/morning reports from August to September 1946. The June 2018 PIES request incorrectly lists the unit the Veteran was attached to prior to his separation from service in September 1947, 608TH Aircraft Control & Warning Group, and not the unit to which he was assigned from July 1946 to September 1946 where the vehicle accident allegedly took place. A response to the June 2018 PIES request is not associated with the claims file. However, after the Board's September 2020 remand, a new PIES request was submitted in January 2021 for morning reports for the following units: (1) "463 AAF BASE UNIT SQUAD M-2, GEIGER FIELD WA" for the period from July 1, 1946 to September 29, 1946, (2) "506 TACT CONTROL GROUP 608 AIR CONTROL MARCH FIELD" for the period from October 1, 1946 to December 30, 1946 (3) "SQUAD X 321 AAF BASE UNIT, MARCH FIELD CA" for the period from October 1, 1946 to December 30, 1946. It appears the January 2021 PIES request is still pending, as a response is not associated with the claims file. Instead of obtaining a response to the January 2021 PIES request, the January 2018 PIES response was reuploaded to the Veteran's claims folder in October 2021. Moreover, there is no indication in the record that the RO followed up with the Veteran to request his company, battery, or battalion, as the NPRC reported was required by the NPRC in its May 2018 response. In consideration of the deficiencies described above, the Board finds that remand is once again necessary to fulfill its heightened duty to assist the Veteran in obtaining alternative evidence to support his claim. In particular, the Board notes that it does not appear attempts have been completed/exhausted to obtain sick/morning reports from the proper units. As the Veteran reported he received treatment at both the unit where the incident occurred and the follow-on unit to which he was assigned prior to separation from service, on remand, the AOJ should attempt to obtain sick/morning reports from appropriate repositories for all units identified by the Veteran. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. With any assistance needed from the Veteran to clarify and/or identify the proper unit and/or time period, including having the Veteran identify any company, battery, or battalion in which he served, take all appropriate steps to request and obtain sick/morning reports from appropriate repositories for the units identified below. All attempts to obtains such records should be documented and associated with the claims file. (a.) For the period of July 1946 through September 1946: 463rd Army Air Forces (AAF) Base Unit, Squadron M-2, Geiger Field, Washington. (b.) For the period of October 1946 through September 1947: 506th Tactical Control Group, March Field, California 608th Aircraft Control and Warning Group, March Field, California Squadron X (Separation Squadron), 321st AAF Base Unit (Base Svc), March Field, California. 2. After the development described above, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If any determination remains unfavorable to the Veteran, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). These claims must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Moore, Associate 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.