Citation Nr: 21074597 Decision Date: 12/15/21 Archive Date: 12/15/21 DOCKET NO. 18-39 178 DATE: December 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from January 1978 to January 1981 and from October 1984 to October 2002. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a December 2021 Board hearing. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that her left knee disability is directly related to her active service. Specifically, she contends that the constant wear and tear from exercise during her 21-year tenure on active duty resulted in an ACL tear that led to a meniscus tear after service. See VA Form 9, July 2018. To date, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination for this claim. In view of her December 2021 testimony, the Board finds that the low threshold governing VA's duty to provide an examination as set forth in McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83-86 (2006) has been satisfied. Here, medical evidence demonstrates that the Veteran has a diagnosed left knee ACL tear, arthritis of the left knee, and mild degenerative joint disease of the left knee, with a left knee medial meniscectomy performed in January 2015. The Veteran has indicated that an injury in service ultimately led to the eventual tear of her left ACL. The Board finds that the Veteran's statements regarding knee wear and tear during active service are credible and consistent with the circumstances of her service and concedes in service wear and tear of the left knee. Therefore, this evidence meets the low threshold under McClendon, and a VA examination should be sought. The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of her left knee disability. The Board notes that at least a portion of the Veteran's service treatment records are outstanding, namely from her service from 1978-1981. All efforts to obtain the needed information have been exhausted, and based on these facts, further attempts to obtain the records would be futile. VA made a formal finding of unavailability and notified the Veteran in January 2016 written correspondence. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding service treatment records from 1984-2002 and post-service treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of her left knee disability. Following a review of the claims file and a thorough examination of the Veteran, the examiner is asked to opine whether: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's left knee disability was incurred in, or is otherwise related to, her active duty service, to include the conceded in-service wear and tear on the left knee from physical exercise? (b.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's left knee disability (1) began during active service, (2) manifested within one year after discharge from service, or (3) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service? In formulating an opinion, the examiner should consider the Veteran's assertions that the left knee disability is due to extensive physical activity in service. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report her symptoms and history, and such reports are to be considered in formulating any opinion, to include whether the wear and tear in service led to the Veteran's development of a left knee disability later in life. Further, the examiner is advised that a portion of the Veteran's service treatment records are unavailable (from January 1978 to January 1981), so the lack of documentation of an in-service injury during that time period may not be the sole basis for a negative finding that no such injury occurred. (Continued on the next page) The examiner must provide a comprehensive rationale for any opinion provided. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Krista Johnson, 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.