Citation Nr: 21077028 Decision Date: 12/28/21 Archive Date: 12/28/21 DOCKET NO. 16-56 612 DATE: December 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for sarcoidosis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1983 to January 1986. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) from an August 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board observes that in a November 2016 Form 9, the Veteran limited his appeal to the issues as listed on the title page of this decision. Additionally, the Veteran requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) via live videoconference. A hearing was scheduled for September 2021, however, the Veteran failed to appear and, to date, has not shown good cause for his "no show," nor requested a new Board hearing. Accordingly, the Board considers his hearing request to be withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.700, 20.704. 1. Entitlement to service connection for sarcoidosis is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for sarcoidosis which he contends is etiologically related to active duty service. To date no VA examination has been provided regarding the Veteran's claimed entitlement to service connection for sarcoidosis. The Board finds that a medical examination pertaining to the Veteran's claim is imperative before a decision can be made in the matter. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for a left foot disability which he contends is etiologically related to active duty service. A review of the Veteran's VA treatment records reveal that the Veteran has received treatment for left foot pain. Additionally, the Veteran's STRs show that the Veteran received treatment for left heel pain while on active duty. To date no VA examination has been provided regarding the Veteran's claimed entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability. The VA is required to provide a medical examination pertaining to the Veteran's claim before a decision can be made in the matter. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a back condition is remanded. Regarding the Veteran's claim for service connection for a back condition, the Veteran received VA examinations in August 2015 and February 2016. Both examiners opined that the Veteran's condition was less likely than not etiologically related to active duty service. The Board observes that the August 2015 examiner cited a lack of back complaints contained within the Veteran's STRs as rationale for their opinion, while the February 2016 examiner cited a lack of in-service complaints after treatment in 1985 as the basis for finding that the Veteran's current back complaints are less likely than not related to active duty service. However, a review of the Veteran's service treatment records reveals that the Veteran received treatment for back pain in both 1985 and 1986 and was placed on light duty for a period of time due to back complaints. As both examiner's failed to address the Veteran's repeated in-service back complaints, the Board finds them both to be inadequate for determining entitlement to service connection. Accordingly, remand is warranted to obtain a new examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Afford the Veteran an examination(s) with a physician(s) of appropriate expertise to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed sarcoidosis, left foot condition, and back condition. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner(s). Any indicated studies should be performed. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner should state an opinion with respect to whether the claimed conditions are at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) etiologically related to military service. If an examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If an examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Gorum, 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.