Citation Nr: 21008116 Decision Date: 02/11/21 Archive Date: 02/11/21 DOCKET NO. 13-17 485 DATE: February 11, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for a low back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Navy from March 1951 to March 1955. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2010 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2014, the Veteran testified in support of this appeal during a hearing held at the Seattle, Washington RO before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. In May 2014, May 2015, and December 2015 the Board remanded this matter for further development. In November 2016, the Board issued a decision denying service connection for a low back disability. In a May 2017 Order, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) endorsed a joint motion for remand (JMR), vacated the Board’s November 2016 decision, and remanded the case for further action consistent with the terms of the joint motion. As noted above, this matter was returned to the Board pursuant to a May 2017 JMR. “A joint motion for remand, when drafted properly, identifies … clear instructions to the Board as to what it is required to address, and what actions it is required to take, on remand. This increases both administrative and judicial efficiency.” Carter v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 534, 541 (2014), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Carter v. McDonald, 794 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In May 2018, the Board denied service connection for a low back disability. In a December 2019 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated the Board’s May 2018 decision and remanded the claim for readjudication consistent with its decision. In July 2020, the Board remanded this matter for further development. The July 2020 remand directed the RO to obtain the Veteran’s anesthesia records from his inguinal hernia surgery. In a September 2020 letter, the RO notified the Veteran that it attempted to obtain these records and documented its attempts. The RO’s attempts were limited to the Veteran’s VA treatment records. In a December 2020 letter, the RO notified the Veteran that it attempted to obtain his service treatment records from Veterans Affairs Medical Center and was informed that no records were available. However, the anesthesia record in question relates to the Veteran’s in-service hernia surgery from his in-service hospitalization that was done in November and December 1953. The Veteran’s service treatment records show that the Veteran was hospitalized at United States Naval Hospital Yokosuka in 1953, and underwent two surgeries for excision of lipoma-halsted hernia and repair of inguinal canal. Compliance with the Board’s remand instructions is neither optional nor discretionary. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The RO failing to attempt to obtain the Veteran’s in-service hospitalization records supports that the RO has not substantially complied with the Board’s remand instructions. As such, another remand is necessary. Furthermore, the Veteran’s VA treatment records indicate that there may be outstanding and relevant Indian Health Service (IHS) records. His VA treatment records note that the Veteran was receiving care through IHS. A remand is required to allow VA to request these records.   The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain records of any inpatient treatment at United States Naval Hospital Yokosuka in 1953. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 2. Obtain the Veteran’s federal records from Indian Health Service. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Chandeck, 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.