Citation Nr: 21074841
Decision Date: 12/16/21	Archive Date: 12/16/21

DOCKET NO. 18-31 174
DATE: December 16, 2021

REMANDED

Whether new and material evidence has been submitted regarding the claim for service connection for refractive error of the left eye (claimed as left eye injury, with conjunctival erythema) is remanded.

Whether new and material evidence has been submitted regarding the claim for service connection for a lower back condition is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1970 to March 1970 and from August 1972 to February 1973.  The Veteran had subsequent service in the Reserves.

In an October 2016 claim, the Veteran asserted that he had been receiving treatment dating back to 1980 at the Longview VAOPC.  The Board acknowledges that this VA facility is connected with the Overton Brooks VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Shreveport, Louisiana, and that records have previously been requested from this facility dating back only to 1998.  As such, the Board finds that the issues on appeal must be remanded in order to attempt to obtain records dating back to 1980 from this facility.  Additionally, on remand, all recent, outstanding VA treatment records should be obtained as well. 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Associate with the claims file all outstanding archived and electronic records from the Overton Brooks VAMC and any associated outpatient clinics, to specifically include the Longview Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC), from 1980 to 1998. Searches must be made of archived/retired paper records, with documented negative responses if no records are found.

2. Associate with the claims file all outstanding treatment records from the Michael E. DeBakey VAMC and associated outpatient clinics from August 2021 to the present. 

 

 

MICHELLE L. KANE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	L. Durham, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.