Citation Nr: 21073718 Decision Date: 12/10/21 Archive Date: 12/10/21 DOCKET NO. 16-36 873 DATE: December 10, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation for chronic lumbar strain in excess of 20 percent prior to March 6, 2018 and since February 10, 2020, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent from March 6, 2018 to February 9, 2020, for chronic lumbar strain is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 12, 2013, for the award of service connection for a right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy associated with chronic lumbar strain is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 12, 2013, for the award of service connection for a left lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy associated with chronic lumbar strain is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1993 to December 2000. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of November 2013 and June 2016 rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board in July 2019 and March 2021. In July 2019, the Board denied entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for chronic lumbar strain prior to March 6, 2018 and granted effective dates of March 12, 2013 for the grants of entitlement to service connection for bilateral radiculopathy of the lower extremities. In February 2020 the AOJ reduced the rating for chronic lumbar strain to 20 percent, effective February 10, 2020, resulting in the current staged ratings for that disability. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a September 2020 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand of the Veteran and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to vacate and remand the portion of the Board's July 2019 decision that denied entitlement to ratings in excess of 20 percent for chronic lumbar strain prior to March 6, 2018 and in excess of 40 percent thereafter, and entitlement to effective dates prior to March 12, 2013 for the grants of entitlement to service connection for bilateral radiculopathy of the lower extremities. In March 2021 the Board remanded the appeals for further development. The issues have now been returned to the Board. Regretfully, it is necessary to remand this appeal again in order to ensure compliance with a prior Board remand directive. In its March 2021 remand, the Board directed that VA was to obtain a copy of the Veteran's Vocational Rehabilitation folder, including records relating to his October 2016 VA Vocational Rehabilitation plan. In May and June emails, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) requested the Veteran's Vocational Rehabilitation folder. A June 2021 response indicates that the "[counseling, evaluation and rehabilitation] folder was sent to scanning on [April 27, 2021]." However, the Vocational Rehabilitation folder is not associated with the claims folder. In a July 2021 email, the AOJ again requested the Vocational Rehabilitation folder, but there was no response. A May 2021 grade report was associated with the file, but it is clear that this document does not comprise the entirety of the Vocational Rehabilitation folder. When obtaining records in Federal custody, VA must make as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant records, until VA concludes that further efforts to obtain these records are futile. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(2). Remand is required to ensure adequate measures to obtain the Veteran's Vocational Rehabilitation folder, including records relating to his October 2016 VA Vocational Rehabilitation plan in compliance with the Board's March 2021 remand directive. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain the Veteran's Vocational Rehabilitation folder, including records relating to his October 2016 VA Vocational Rehabilitation plan. If the AOJ cannot locate such records, it must specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them and explain in writing why further attempts to locate or obtain them would be futile. The AOJ must then: (a) notify the claimant of the specific records that it is unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts it has made to obtain that evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claim. The claimant must then be given an opportunity to respond. LAURA E. COLLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Bametzreider, Paul J. 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.