Citation Nr: 21072847 Decision Date: 12/06/21 Archive Date: 12/06/21 DOCKET NO. 18-11 998 DATE: December 6, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for an eye condition, to include as secondary to service-connected chronic sinusitis, is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a dental condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Air Force from June 1982 to November 1982, with additional service in the Air Force Reserve in December 1982. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2016 rating decision of a VA Regional Office (RO). In January 2021, the Veteran testified at a virtual Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the Veteran's electronic claims file. In June 2021, the Board remanded these matters for further evidentiary development. Although regrettable, additional remand is required for substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand instructions relating to outstanding service records. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270-71 (1998). This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). 1. The claim of entitlement to service connection for an eye condition, to include as secondary to service-connected chronic sinusitis, is remanded. See section 3, below. 2. The claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. See section 3, below. 3. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a dental condition is remanded. The Veteran contends that his claimed conditions are related to his service. The Board remanded these matters in June 2021, in part, due to evidence that the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) as contained in his electronic claims folder were incomplete and specifically missing the Veteran's separation examination. Additionally, the Board noted the Veteran's contention that he had service in the Air Force Reserve to December 20, 1982 and noted that pertinent periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) or inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) were not of record. The Board directed the RO to undertake all appropriate efforts to obtain any missing military treatment records, to include the Veteran's separation examination, from all appropriate periods of duty, to include records associated with the Air Force Reserve, and directed that all efforts to obtain these records be documented in the claims file and the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e) be followed. The Board recognizes that a PIES request was made on June 28, 2021. However, this request specifically limited the records search from June 23, 1982, to November 18, 1982, and the record does not contain a response to this request. Furthermore, to date, the RO has not drafted a formal finding of unavailability for the separation records to indicate that all efforts to obtain the records have been exhausted and that additional attempts would be futile. Finally, it is unclear to the Board what steps the RO has taken to obtain a complete copy of the Veteran's service and treatment records for his final month of service in the Colorado Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve. See December 1982 Special Order (reflecting concurrent discharge from the Colorado ANG and Air Force Reserve, effective December 20, 1982). Since the missing records could be determinative as to the issues on appeal, the Board finds all indicated development to obtain those records must be accomplished. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. These matters have been advanced on the Board's docket. 2. Request the Veteran's complete official military personnel file (OMPF) and service treatment records (STRs) from the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC), from the Veteran's Air Force Reserve and Colorado Air National Guard Units, or from any other appropriate source, to include submitting a PIES 050 request, to determine whether any additional service records are available from June 1982 through December 1982. 3. If any requested records are deemed unavailable, the record must be annotated to reflect that determination, and the Veteran must be notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. 4. If, following completion of the above development, any additional medical or relevant personnel records are located, the AOJ shall obtain addendum opinions from the clinicians who completed VA examinations of the Veteran for hearing loss (August 2021), dental conditions (September 2021), and eye conditions (September 2021). If these clinicians are not available, obtain addendum opinions from other qualified clinicians. New examinations should be scheduled only if deemed necessary. The addendum opinions shall address whether the additional records are cause for any revision in the prior medical opinions and should include the rationale for the clinician's opinion. 5. After completing all indicated development, the Veteran's claims should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and afforded the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is remanded to the Board. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Hart, 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.