Citation Nr: 21075749 Decision Date: 12/21/21 Archive Date: 12/21/21 DOCKET NO. 19-08 256 DATE: December 21, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for diabetes mellitus type II. Service connection for prostate cancer. Service connection for bronchitis. Service connection for a spine disability. Service connection for high blood pressure (HBP). Service connection for a right hand disability. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1976 to February 1980. The Veteran had additional service with the Puerto Rico Air National Guard. The case is on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision. In March 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. The record was held open for 60 days. No additional evidence was received during that time. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Service connection for diabetes mellitus type II. 2. Service connection for prostate cancer. 3. Service connection for bronchitis. 4. Service connection for a spine disability. 5. Service connection for HBP. 6. Service connection for a right hand disability. As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that in his December 2014 claim of service connection the Veteran claimed a lumbar spine disability. See also November 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD); and February 2019 VA Form 9. Nevertheless, during the March 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran's representative VSO stated that the spine complications include problems with his cervical spine. Accordingly, the Board has recharacterized the Veteran's claim of service connection to reflect any spine disability. Now, pertinent to the above claims for service connection, the Board finds that a remand is warranted to obtain service personnel records (SPRs) that appear to be missing from the claims file. The Board notes that while the RO appears to have conducted development of the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs), that does not seem to be the case with respect to SPRs. The claims file account for one DD-214, one NBG Form 22, and a copy of separation orders from the Air National Guard, all submitted by the Veteran. Moreover, there appears to be an additional period of active duty service for which, if the case, a DD-214 must be obtained. In that regard and as previously noted, the Veteran initially served four years on active duty from February 1976 to February 1980. See DD-214 received in January 1984. The NBG Form 22 received in December 2014 shows, nonetheless, that the Veteran had a total active duty service of five (5) years, four (4) months, and twenty-two (22) days. Therefore, there seems to be an additional period, or additional periods, of active duty service for a total of 1 year, 4 months, and 22 days that must be accounted for. In addition, the Veteran's claims concern questions regarding whether his conditions are related to or had their onset in service. However, the evidence is not clear as to whether these conditions had their onset in or were treated during periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA), or inactive duty training (INACDUTRA), as the record does not currently include an accounting of all the dates of the Veteran's periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. Also, during his March 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that in 1992, he "became a military technician," for which he was required to report for duty "40 hours" per week as a regular full-time job. See hearing transcript, p.5. The foregoing suggests that the Veteran served as a military technician under the provisions set forth 10 U.S.C. § 10216. The Board notes that a military technician (dual status) is a Federal civilian employee who is employed under section 3101 of Title 5 or section 709(b) of Title 31; is required as a condition of that employment to maintain membership in the Selected Reserve; and is assigned to a civilian position as a technician in the organizing, administering, instructing, or training of the Selected Reserve or in the maintenance and repair of supplies or equipment issued to the Selected Reserve or the armed forces. See 10 U.S.C. § 10216. There is no legal basis upon which to establish service connection for diseases or injuries incurred during civilian employment. See, e.g., Venturella v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 340 (1997) (holding that where a claimant has status as a Reserve/Guard member and as a civilian military employee, service connection is not in order for those diseases or injuries that were incurred during civilian employment). Notwithstanding the above, it is still not clear whether the Veteran performed periods of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA during his appointment as a military technician. This is particularly so given that a June 2001 Pre-Deployment Heath Assessment suggests that the Veteran received Orders to deploy to Europe. For the reasons set forth above, the appeal must be remanded for development of the Veteran's SPRs prior to adjudicating the claims on the merits. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain any updated VA treatment records dated since January 2019. (Continued on the next page) 2. Request the Veteran's SPRs and any outstanding STRs, including any line of duty (LOD) reports, pertaining to his Air National Guard service in Puerto Rico from the appropriate agencies or repositories and associate the records with the claims file. All attempts to obtain this information, and all responses received, must be documented in the claims file. If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in his possession. 3. To the extent possible, compile and list the Veteran's periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA service, to include any additional period(s) of active duty service as suggested by the NGB Form 22 referenced above. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board William Pagan, 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.