Citation Nr: 21075665 Decision Date: 12/21/21 Archive Date: 12/21/21 DOCKET NO. 17-66 414 DATE: December 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral spine disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from October 1979 to May 1992. She also had additional service in the U.S. Army National Guard from May 1992 to April 1997. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran's former service representative, the Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs, withdrew from representing her in January 2018 after she moved out of state. Thus, she is unrepresented before VA. In November 2018, the Veteran notified VA that she had remarried and changed her last name to what is listed above. A virtual Board hearing was held in August 2021 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the record. The Veteran essentially contends that she incurred her current lumbosacral spine disability during active service and experienced continuous post-service disability. She specifically testified before the Board in August 2021 that she injured her lumbosacral spine while performing physical training (PT) in 1991. Unfortunately, it appears that most of the Veteran's service treatment records are missing and may have been lost. In cases where the Veteran's service treatment records (or other relevant records) are unavailable through no fault of the claimant, there is a heightened obligation to assist the claimant in the development of his or her case. O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365 (1991). VA also must provide an explanation to the appellant regarding VA's inability to obtain his or her service treatment records. Dixon v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 261 (1992). The Court has held that VA's efforts to obtain service department records shall continue until the records are obtained or unless it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile. Hayre v. West, 188 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also McCormick v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 39 (2000). Here, the RO contacted the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri (NPRC), VA's Records Management Center (RMC), the Veteran's Army National Guard (ANG) unit, and the Defense Personnel Information Retrieval System (DPRIS) in an attempt to obtain the Veteran's complete service treatment records. The NPRC, RMC, the ANG unit, and DPRIS all responded that there were limited or no records available for the Veteran. She also notified the RO that she did not have any service treatment records in her possession in response to a request from VA that she provide these records. A review of the record evidence shows that only 5 pages of service treatment records currently are associated with the claims file. It seems odd and unlikely to the Board that, after the Veteran served 13 years in the Army and at least 5 years in the Army National Guard, only 5 pages of service treatment records are available. Thus, the Board finds that, on remand, another attempt should be made to obtain these records. The Veteran also testified in August 2021 that she received outpatient treatment from the VA in Hampton, Virginia. It does not appear that the RO attempted to obtain the Veteran's VA outpatient treatment records. Thus, on remand, the Veteran's updated VA treatment records should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct any appropriate development to obtain the Veteran's updated treatment records, to include any records which may be available from the VA Medical Center in Hampton, Virginia. 2. Contact the appropriate Federal records repository and request the Veteran's complete service treatment records and service personnel records. A copy of any request(s) for these records, and any reply, to include a negative reply or any records provided in response to the request(s), should be associated with the claims file. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the appeal. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.