Citation Nr: A21020281 Decision Date: 12/20/21 Archive Date: 12/20/21 DOCKET NO. 200520-87726 DATE: December 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for a left wrist scar is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 2, 2020, for the award of a 30 percent rating for asthma is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from September 1985 to August 1989. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a timely appeal to the Board following a March 2020 Statement of the Case (SOC), the Veteran indicated that he wished to opt-in to the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) system, which is a new framework for veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. See May 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal. In his appeal, the Veteran requested Direct Review of the evidence considered by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). See id. As such, the Board will only consider the evidence of record as of the date of the March 2020 SOC. VA has a duty to provide a Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) notice to the Veteran of the information and evidence required to substantiate his claims prior to issuing a rating decision. 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b). Here, the AOJ failed to provide the Veteran such affirmative notice prior to issuing a rating decision, which constitutes a pre-decisional due process error. Accordingly, the AOJ must provide such notice to the Veteran and give him an opportunity to provide any such information and evidence. Moreover, although the evidence of record reflects that the Veteran has received post-service treatment relevant to his claims, this evidence is not of record and it does not appear that the AOJ attempted to obtain any such records. In this regard, the evidence shows, and the Veteran reports, that he requires the use of inhaled medication for his asthma. See e.g., March 2017 Correspondence and June 2017 VA respiratory conditions examination. Additionally, at the June 2017 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he had a colonoscopy three years prior and was informed that he may have IBS from his gastrointestinal specialist. Despite these reports of post-service treatment and although there are compensation evaluations of record, there are no post-service treatment records associated with the claims file nor does the evidence of record show that the AOJ attempted to obtain these records or otherwise requested such records from the Veteran. Consequently, a remand is necessary for the AOJ to fulfill its duty to assist. The Board notes that as the Veteran has not been provided the opportunity to identify or submit private treatment records, any private treatment records associated with the claims file on remand may also be relevant to the Veteran's scar claim. Thus, a remand is necessary to correct a pre-decisional due process error and a pre-decisional duty to assist error. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Send a VCAA duty to assist letter to the Veteran notifying him of the criteria to develop and substantiate his claims. Allow the Veteran a reasonable time to respond. 2. Provide the Veteran with an opportunity to identify and/or submit private treatment records related to his claim. The evidence reflects that he receives active medication for his asthma and has been treated by a gastrointestinal specialist. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding, identified records should be obtained. All efforts to obtain any identified records should be documented in the claims file. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Amanda Purcell, 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.