Citation Nr: 21077398 Decision Date: 12/29/21 Archive Date: 12/29/21 DOCKET NO. 17-56 216A DATE: December 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1968 to January 1971, with additional service in the Army National Guard. This matter is on appeal from a September 2013 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2020, a hearing was held before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is in the record. The case was previously before the Board in May 2020 when it was remanded for further development. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine condition is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a lumbar spine disability. However, upon review of the record, the Board notes that an additional opinion is necessary to adequately address the etiology of the Veteran's current disability. By way of background, the Board notes that the Veteran has cited several incidents which he attributes to his current disability. First, as explained in the prior remand, the Veteran has stated that his disability is related to a hernioplasty undergone during active duty in September 1969. In September 2020, the RO obtained an opinion from a clinician who addressed this theory of entitlement and provided a negative nexus opinion. Second, the Veteran has referenced multiple incidents after his period of active duty as a cause of his disability. However, since the prior remand, the RO has obtained additional personnel records which clarify that these injuries were not incurred during the Veteran's periods of service. Specifically, the record notes an injury on September 24, 1993, but personnel records reflect that the Veteran was only called for inactive duty for training on the 17th and 18th of the month in September 1993. Further, service records note a date of injury on September 28, 1995, but personnel records show that the Veteran was only on inactive duty for training on the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th of the month in September 1995. Service records also note that the Veteran sustained an additional injury to his lower back while lifting a heavy object on October 4, 1995, but personnel records do not note inactive or active duty for training at all during the month of October 1995. Finally, service records note that the Veteran sustained an injury on June 20, 1996, but personnel records reflect that the Veteran's inactive duty for training during the month of June 1996 was only on the 8th and 9th. As such, all of the incidents described above are either accounted for in the evidence of record by the VA examiner or not subject to service connection because they did not occur during active duty or inactive or active duty for training. A sick slip in the Veteran's service records reflects that the Veteran had a back strain sustained in the line of duty in September 1991. However, the sick slip is unclear regarding whether the Veteran was on ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA and the personnel records obtained pursuant to the Board's prior remand do not clarify the Veteran's status for that period of time. Although requests for the Veteran's pay records were made in June 2020 and September 2020, the RO did not follow up to a September 2020 response that indicated further actions were needed before the pay records could be obtained. As such, the Board finds that further development for the Veteran's pay records should be completed for September 1991. In August 2020, the RO obtained a medical opinion from a VA examiner, and the RO specifically referenced the September 1991 line of duty determination for a back injury in the remarks section of the opinion request. However, the examiner stated that he was unable to review all of the material in detail and did not address the line of duty determination from September 1991. Once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination for a service-connection claim, it must provide an adequate one or, at minimum, notify the claimant why one will not or cannot be provided. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311-12 (2007). An opinion is considered adequate when it is based on consideration of the Veteran's prior medical history and examinations and describes the disability in sufficient detail so that the Board's evaluation of the claimed disability is a fully informed one. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). If it is determined that the September 1991 injury occurred when the Veteran was on a period of active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty for training, then an opinion should be obtained addressing this injury. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make a request to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for the Veteran's pay records for September 1991 to determine if he was on active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty for training during this time, in particular his status on September 7, 1991. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 2. If the development requested in item 1 reflects that the Veteran was on a qualifying period of service on September 7, 1991, then return the claims file to the August 2020 VA examiner, or another appropriate clinician if that examiner is not available, for review and an addendum medical opinion. The reviewing clinician should be requested to provide an opinion (based on a review of the record) to answer the following: Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability was incurred in or related to service, specifically the September 1991 back strain sustained in the line of duty? A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the clinician cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the clinician must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The clinician must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally, the clinician must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. H. White, 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.