Citation Nr: 21006852 Decision Date: 02/05/21 Archive Date: 02/05/21 DOCKET NO. 16-17 517 DATE: February 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran honorably served in the United States Army from June 1964 to November 1964 with subsequent service in the National Guard of Florida. These matters appear before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2016 rating decision of the Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Board previously remanded the Veteran’s claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus in November 2018. The Board directed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to obtain the Veteran’s full service treatment records, any outstanding private treatment records, any outstanding VA treatment records, and an addendum or new nexus opinion. The Veteran’s outstanding private treatment records were received in September and October 2019. The Veteran’s VA treatment records were associated with the Veteran’s file in October 2019. The Veteran’s service treatment records were also associated with the Veteran’s claim in October 2019. Finally, VA requested a new VA examination in November 2019 and a new examination with accompanying opinions were obtained in January 2020. Accordingly, the Board finds substantial compliance with its November 2018 remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus The Veteran specifically contends that his military noise exposure occurred while he was on a period of ACDUTRA with the Florida National Guard. ACDUTRA is, among other things, full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes or by members of the National Guard of any state. 38 U.S.C.A. § 101 (22); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (c)(1). INACDUTRA is part-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes or by members of the National Guard of any state. 38 U.S.C.A. § 101 (22); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (c)(1). Active service also includes authorized travel to or from such duty or service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 106 (d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (e). In summary, when a claim for service connection is based only on a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA, there must be evidence that the appellant became disabled as a result of a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during that period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101 (2), (22), (24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (a); Donnellan v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 167, 172 (2010); Acciola v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 320, 324 (2008) (citing Mercado-Martinez v. West, 11 Vet. App. 415, 419 (1998); Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 466, 470 (1995)). In the absence of such evidence, the period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA would not qualify as “active military, naval, or air service,” and the appellant would not qualify as a “veteran” for that period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA service alone. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (2), (24); see Acciola, 22 Vet. App. at 324. Upon review of the Veteran’s claim, the Board sees that the Veteran’s active duty service treatment records and military personnel records are associated with the file. However, the Veteran’s service treatment records and military personnel records from his service in the National Guard of Florida are not associated with the file. Although the Board is reluctant to contribute to “the hamster-wheel reputation of Veterans law” by remanding this claim again, additional development is required before the underlying claims can be adjudicated on the merits. Cf. Coburn v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 427, 434 (2006) (Lance, J., dissenting) (finding that repeated remands “perpetuate the hamster-wheel reputation of Veterans law”). Accordingly, for the Board to make a complete decision on the Veteran’s claim, an attempt to obtain these missing records must be made. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s complete service personnel records, to include all available documents pertaining to his service in the National Guard of Florida. Verify all active duty for training and inactive duty training dates for alleged service in the National Guard of Florida from November 1964 to February 1970. If necessary, a request should be made to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 2. Obtain the Veteran’s complete service treatment records, to include documents pertaining to his service in the National Guard of Florida from November 1964 to February 1970. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. N. Fournier, 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.