Citation Nr: 21075188 Decision Date: 12/17/21 Archive Date: 12/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-31 120 DATE: December 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected lumbar strain is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the Army from November 1996 to November 1999. The Board notes that while the Supplemental Statement of the Case states the Veteran's rating is 10 percent, the Veteran was granted a 20 percent rating effective May 27, 2016. Thus, the claim as characterized on the title page is correct. In February 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veteran's Law Judge (VLJ) at a hearing in San Antonio, Texas. A transcript of this hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Veteran's claim was previously before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) in March 2020 and March 2021 wherein it was remanded for additional development. While this development was attempted, the Board finds that another remand is warranted to allow for the development of the Veteran's claim. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected lumbar strain is remanded. As explained in both prior Remands, the Veteran testified that he receives care from a private doctor (Dr. O.E.) for his service-connected back disorder and that he has to go to his doctor when his back goes out so that he can get an excuse from work. The Veteran's file contains medical records from Dr. O.E. that reference the Veteran's back. Prior to the most recent remand, the most recent record was from January 13, 2017. Given that the Veteran does not seek care at a VA Medical Center, the Board remanded the claim to obtain these records. The Board instructed the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to attempt to obtain these records. In compliance with both prior Remands, the AOJ complied with the Board's requests to obtain information and attempted to develop the record. Despite the Veteran completing a release for Dr. O.E. and the AOJ requesting the records, Dr. O.E.'s office did not provide the records. In fact, the AOJ telephonically contacted the office and the office indicated that the records would be sent in but were not. See VBMS, document labeled VA 21-0820 Report of General Information, receipt date June 11, 2021. The Veteran submitted some records from Dr. O.E., but these records were all prior to January 13, 2017. See VBMS, document labeled Medical Treatment Record - Non-Government Facility, receipt date June 4, 2021, pages 12-33 of 33. In an abundance of caution, the Board finds a remand is necessary once again to obtain these records. As previously stated, other than the VA examinations of record and the Veteran's lay statements, there is no other evidence related to the Veteran's back since January 2017a gap of almost five years as of the date of this Remand. While the AOJ has attempted to develop the record (and is directed to continue to do so), the Veteran is advised that he must also attempt to obtain these recent records. In this regard, the Board wishes to emphasize that, "[t]he duty to assist in the development and adjudication of a claim is not a one-way street." Wamhoff v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 517, 522 (1996). "If a veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence." Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). It is the responsibility of appellants to cooperate with VA. See Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480, 483 (1992). Therefore, the Veteran is on notice of the potential consequences if no other medical records are associated with the file, despite the AOJ's attempts to develop the record. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should attempt to obtain private treatment records from Dr. O.E. from January 2017 forward, making all necessary efforts to do so. See VBMS, document labeled VA 21-0820 Report of General Information, receipt date June 11, 2021. A recent release for Dr. O.E. is in the file. 2. The Veteran should be notified of his obligation to obtain the records, should the AOJ fail to obtain them. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board I. M. Hitchcock 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.