Citation Nr: 21008595 Decision Date: 02/17/21 Archive Date: 02/17/21 DOCKET NO. 15-26 136 DATE: February 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for residuals of heat stroke is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for headaches, to include as secondary to residuals of heat stroke, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include as secondary to residuals of heat stroke, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from June 1989 to June 1993. In addition, the Veteran spent time in the United State Marine Corps from January 2000 to June 2000 and from June 2006 to October 2006, including time in the Reserves. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). As an initial matter, a September 2020 rating decision granted service connection for right knee disability. Because the benefit sought on appeal has been granted in full, the issue is no longer before the Board. The Board finds that remand is required because the RO did not comply with the Board’s March 2019 remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In this respect, the March 2019 remand requested that the RO contact the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS), the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), the National Guard Bureau, and/or any other appropriate sources, for records showing the periods of active duty, ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA served by the Veteran. In this respect, the RO requested records from DPRIS. DPRIS provided records and those records are associated with the claims file. However, the RO also requested records from DFAS. The correspondence in the claims file indicates ticket information associated with the request, but there is no response from DFAS. In addition, the RO made an additional request for service treatment records and service personnel records. There is no response to the request. Accordingly, it would be premature for the Board to adjudicate the claims at this time and remand is required. In addition, the Board finds that a new VA opinion must be obtained concerning the Veteran’s claimed headaches. While the September 2020 VA examiner explained that she believed that the Veteran had cervicogenic headaches and opined that the Veteran’s headaches were not a residual of his in-service heat stroke, the examiner did not address whether the Veteran’s headaches were otherwise related to active service. The examiner did not address the Veteran’s lay statements concerning the chronic nature of his headaches or KK’s October 2013 opinion as requested by the Board’s remand. Accordingly, a new opinion is required. The Board also finds that a remand is required to obtain an adequate VA medical opinion as to the claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability. The Veteran has reported that he has experienced anxiety since service. In a September 2016 VA treatment record, the Veteran reported that he developed anxiety and depression after a heat stroke and decided to leave the military in 2007 as a result. Though the Veteran has indicated that his psychiatric disability may be a residual of his in-service heat stroke, he also indicated that he has experienced psychiatric symptoms since service. Here, the August 2013 VA examiner only addressed whether the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder was a residual of heat stroke and not whether his disability was otherwise related to service. Indeed, the examiner indicated that the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder likely had its onset after 2006, but did not specify whether the onset coincided with his active service. A new opinion is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact DFAS, the National Guard Bureau, Marine Corps Reserve, and/or any other appropriate sources, for records showing the periods of active duty, ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA served by the Veteran. Any responses must be documented in the claims file. 2. Make another request for outstanding service treatment records. 3. Obtain an addendum opinion from a suitably qualified examiner concerning the etiology of the Veteran’s headaches. The claims file must be reviewed. The examiner must address whether the Veteran has a diagnosis of cervicogenic headaches versus migraines. The examiner must also opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran’s headache disability had its onset in or is otherwise related to active service. A full and complete rationale must be provided for any opinion reached. In this respect, the examiner is directed to consider the Veteran’s reports that he began to experience chronic headaches after his heat stroke and KK’s October 2013 opinion. The examiner is advised to not simply opine whether or not the Veteran’s headaches are a residual of the heat stroke, but whether the headaches onset during service or are otherwise related to service. 4. Obtain an addendum opinion from a suitably qualified examiner concerning the etiology of the Veteran’s psychiatric disability. The claims file must be reviewed. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran’s psychiatric disability had its onset in or is otherwise related to active service. A full and complete rationale must be provided for any opinion reached. In this respect, the examiner is directed to consider the Veteran’s reports that he began to experience anxiety after his heat stroke. The examiner is advised to not simply opine whether or not the Veteran’s psychiatric disability is a residual of the heat stroke, but whether it manifested during service. 5. Following completion of the above and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the matters on appeal. If the benefits sought remain denied, return the matter to the Board for review. JESSICA SEAY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E.Long-Ellis, 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.