Citation Nr: 21009144 Decision Date: 02/19/21 Archive Date: 02/19/21 DOCKET NO. 13-32 549 DATE: February 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD), claimed as heart condition, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1974 to December 1976. The Veteran testified before a now retired Veterans Law Judge at a hearing in April 2017. A transcript of the proceeding has been associated with the claims file. Although given the opportunity to request another hearing, the Veteran did not respond, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) will presume that another hearing is not desired. 38 C.F.R. § 20.700. Additionally, the Board notes that the Veteran was previously represented by North Carolina Division of Veterans Affairs (NCDVA), as well as private attorney, Gentry C.M. Hogan. In March 2017, both NCDVA and Mr. Gentry withdrew their representation. During the April 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran confirmed that he has not designated another representative, and that he is now proceeding unrepresented in this appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 14.631. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket. See 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 1. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD), claimed as heart condition, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea is remanded. The Board remanded this matter in October 2017 and March 2019 to obtain medical opinions and recent VA treatment records since December 2017. Unfortunately, the Board finds that further Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) development on the claims on appeal is warranted, even though such will, regrettably, further delay an appellate decision on these matters. Specifically, the Veteran reported that he received treatment from the Fayetteville, NC VA Medical Center (VAMC) in 1978. Contact reports in the record from March, June, and August 2018 indicate that the AOJ was in contact with the Fayetteville VAMC to attempt to obtain the reported records, and the AOJ was informed that records dating back to 1978 would need to be obtained from archives. However, there is no evidence in the record to indicate whether an archives search was performed and if the records were located. There are no Fayetteville VAMC records in evidence prior to 2003. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, the Secretary is required to make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant’s claim for a benefit under a law administered by the Secretary. As such, VA is required to make as many requests as are necessary to obtain VA medical records. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159(c)(2), (3). Because the record does not reflect that the treatment records have been obtained, or that VA has attempted to obtain these treatment records, was unable to obtain these treatment records, and notified the Veteran of VA’s inability to obtain the records and the efforts made to obtain the records, a remand is required. Id.   The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any and all treatment records from the Fayetteville VA Medical Center since 1978 and prior to 2003 If the Veteran’s treatment records from the Fayetteville VAMC cannot be obtained or are found not to exist, the AOJ should notify the Veteran of the inability to obtain the records and the efforts made to obtain them, and provide the Veteran with an opportunity to submit such records. Such notice should be documented in the record, such as a formal finding of unavailability. 2. If, and only if, the Fayetteville VAMC medical records dating back to 1978 are obtained, forward the claims file to the VA examiner who conducted the December 2019 VA examination (or another VA examiner if the original examiner is unavailable) for an addendum opinion as to whether the Veteran’s coronary artery disease, claimed as heart condition, was at least as likely as not (i.e. a 50 percent or greater probability) incurred in, caused by a disability having its onset in, or otherwise medically-related to service. The examiner should also review this remand, the prior October 2017 and March 2019 remands, and the evidentiary record including lay statements, and provide a comprehensive report, including complete rationales for all opinions. A new examination is not necessary unless deemed so by the examiner. 3. If, and only if, the Fayetteville VAMC medical records dating back to 1978 are obtained, forward the claims file to the VA examiner who conducted the December 2019 VA examination (or another VA examiner if the original examiner is unavailable) for an addendum opinion as to whether the Veteran’s obstructive sleep apnea was at least as likely as not (i.e. a 50 percent or greater probability) incurred in, caused by a disability having its onset in, or otherwise medically-related to service. The examiner should also review this remand, the prior October 2017 and March 2019 remands, and the evidentiary record including lay statements, and provide a comprehensive report, including complete rationales for all opinions. A new examination is not necessary unless deemed so by the examiner. The claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. Claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Veltri, Associate Counsel