Citation Nr: 21074227 Decision Date: 12/14/21 Archive Date: 12/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-51 252 DATE: December 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for heart disorder, to include ischemic heart disease, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1965 to May 1967, to include service in Korea from September 1965 to October 1966. The Veteran had additional service in the Ohio National Guard from November 1978 to November 1984. The Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) during an October 2019 videoconference hearing; a transcript is of record. When that VLJ retired from employment with the Board, a September 2021 letter was sent requesting clarification whether the Veteran wanted a new hearing. The letter informed the Veteran that he was entitled to another hearing with a different VLJ or, if he did not respond within thirty days, the Board would assume that he does not want another hearing and proceed accordingly. The Veteran did not respond to the letter and the Board has proceeded with this appeal. Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease is remanded. The Board denied the claim of entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agent, in a January 2020 decision. The Veteran appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In April 2021. The Court granted an order which effectuated the provisions of the parties' Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), vacating the Board's January 2020 decision and remanding it to the Board for action consistent with the parties' directives. The parties found that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its denial. Specifically, the Board did not address the Veteran's testimony at the October 2019 Board hearing that he had a heart attack during a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) or during his any period of his National Guard service. Existing medical records indicate that the Veteran has an extensive history of cardiac disabilities, beginning in September 1981a year when he had both National Guard and ACDUTRA service. The record is unclear as to the dates of any ACDUTRA or INACTDUTRA periods during the Veteran's National Guard service. While the record of evidence includes a summary of retirement points for some periods of his National Guard service, this does not suffice for the purposes of determining the dates of the periods of ACDUTRA and INADCUTRA served. To this end, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should obtain complete records for the Veteran's service in the Ohio Army National Guard, in an attempt to determine the Veteran's periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. As the outstanding evidence and nature of the Veteran's National Guard service impacts the criteria necessary to establish service connection, after the necessary development has been substantially completed, a VA opinion should be obtained to determine the etiology and dates of onset of his heart disorders and the associated symptomatology. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The AOJ must obtain the Veteran's complete service treatment records and service personnel records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Ohio National Guard, and any other appropriate record repository. 2. Based on the above evidence, the AOJ must verify the nature of the totality of the Veteran's service, to include the dates of all periods of active dutyACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. Should it be necessary, the AOJ should obtain requisite releases and obtain the Veteran's pay stubs from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). A summary of all dates of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA served by the Veteran in the Ohio Army National Guard, must be determined. A listing of the Veteran's retirement points will NOT suffice to address this remand directive. The AOJ must make formal findings as to periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA and associate such with the evidence of record. 3. After completing the foregoing development, forward the claims file to an appropriate clinician for an opinion as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran's heart disorder/s, to include ischemic heart disease. The clinician must review the entire claims file, including a copy of this remand and the AOJ's formal findings. Such review must be noted in the body of the clinician's opinion. The clinician should identify all heart condition(s) attributable to the Veteran throughout the appellate period. If the clinician determines that an additional physical examination would be beneficial in ascertaining the nature and etiology of the Veteran's heart disorder (disorders), such must be scheduled. For each heart condition identified, the clinician should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's heart condition (or conditions) was incurred in, aggravated by, or otherwise attributable to, any aspect of the Veteran's active-duty service, ACDUTRA and/or INACDUTRA service. In formulating an etiological opinion, the clinician should consider and address all competent medical and lay evidence of record, including the Veteran's service treatment records, the Veteran's VA medical records, the Veteran's private medical records, and all lay statements of record. (Continued on the next page) The clinician must provide a comprehensive report that includes a complete rationale for all opinions and conclusions reached. B. J. KOMINS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Sneeringer, 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.