Citation Nr: 21077005 Decision Date: 12/28/21 Archive Date: 12/28/21 DOCKET NO. 14-01 914 DATE: December 28, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active-duty service with the United States Army from July 1977 to January 1983. These matters are before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) from the July 2011 and December 2011 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied service connection for a lumbar condition, left knee condition, and a neck condition. The Veteran claims that he injured his neck, back, and left knee while serving in and training with the Army National Guard at Fort Stewart in Georgia. See VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, received July 26, 2011. The Board remanded the Veteran's claims in September 2017 for development of the Veteran's records to verify any periods of service including any periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). Specifically, development was requested for Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to verify the Veteran's periods of service in the Army National Guard/Army Reserve. Additionally, the RO was directed to request records from the Georgia Army National Guard, a medical facility in Georgia, and a VA Medial clinic (VAMC) in Alabama. The Board issued a December 2019 remand that found the RO had not complied with its September 2017 remand for records development for the Veteran's periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. The Board further found the Veteran was entitled to VA examinations. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar disability Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability The Board notes VA sent correspondence to the Veteran in August 2021 noting the development attempts for the medical facilities in George and Alabama with no records found prior to March 2009. The Veteran's claims file also contains a certification from July 2021 indicating no records were found from the Army Records Processing Center, which noted "After searching with due diligence within the time frame permitted it is determined that there is no (or only minimal) HRR [Hospital Referral Region] or AHLTA [Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application] documentation." The Board also notes DFAS records were received for the Veteran only for his active-duty service from 1977 to 1983 in the form of leave and earnings statements (LESs). VA has failed to obtain any records of the Veteran's additional dates of service of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA as directed by the previous Board remands. The record does contain indications of training in 1997 and 1998 but nothing further. The December 2019 Board remand also requested VA examinations, which were obtained in January 2021. The examiner found the Veteran's claimed disabilities were "less likely as not" due to service. For the Veteran's back claim the examiner found there were mentions of back pain in his service treatment records in 1997 consistent with the Veteran's statements. For the Veteran's neck claim, the examiner noted that a cervical x-ray from 1997 showing disc space narrowing and an April 2009 x-ray showing moderate degenerative discogenic disease, and concluded that there was a causal relationship to the claimed condition. For the Veteran's left knee claim, the examiner found the service treatment records were silent for a left knee disability. The Board finds the VA examinations do not address the remand directives adequately as the examiner fails to address whether the Veteran's claimed conditions began during a period of active service, ACDUTRA, or INACDUTRA, were related to his reported injuries in-service, manifested within one year of active service, or were aggravated by periods of either ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. The examiner specifically noted that the Veteran served from July 1977 to January 1983. The Board finds the VA examinations are not adequate for VA purposes and do not substantially comply with the remand directives. Although regrettable, additional remand is required for full compliance with the Board's previous remand instructions. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270-71 (1998). These matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain all documents pertaining to the Veteran's service in the Army National Guard/Army Reserve. Verify all active duty for training and inactive duty for training dates for service in the Army National Guard/Army Reserve (to include any such dates in 1998 or any other time period specifically identified by the Veteran), to include by way of submitting a request to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for records after January 1983. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. If no records are found or available then a formal finding or any negative response must be provided and documented. 2. After all efforts have been exhausted to obtain and associate with the claims file any additional service records, obtain an addendum opinion by an appropriate clinician, different from the examiner who provided the January 2021 examinations, to determine the nature and etiology of any current back condition, neck condition, and left knee condition. The examiner must opine whether any of the claimed conditions (1) began during or are related to any period of active service, ACDUTRA, or INACDUTRA;(2) manifested within one year after discharge from his period of service from July 1977 to January 1983 (in the case of any currently diagnosed arthritis); (3) are related to an in-service injury or disease, including his reported injuries when he hit his head while playing football and when he fell dismounting from a truck, and considering his 1997 diagnostic imaging; or (4) were aggravated by a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. A clear rationale for all opinions is required. (Continued on the next page) 3. Following completion of the foregoing, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should review the record, perform any necessary development, and readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the appeal is denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), afford the Veteran and his representative an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. Rebecca N. Poulson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C.A. Teich, 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.