Citation Nr: 21009384 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 18-48 699 DATE: February 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service-connection for a right foot bone spur is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1966 to May 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). By way of history in February 2017 the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD). In a March 2017 decision, the Board remanded this issue for additional development. Specifically, the Board noted that the RO had not yet issued a statement of the case (SOC). In September 2018, the RO issued a SOC and in October 2018 the Veteran perfected a substantive appeal. The Board additionally notes that the July 2020 docketing letter was not cc’d to the Veteran’s representative. Nonetheless, a June 2020 letter was cc’d to Vietnam Veterans of American notifying the Veteran that his appeal had been certified to the Board. In addition, a February 2021 letter was sent to the Vietnam Veterans of America informing them that the deadline to submit an Informal Hearing Presentation (IHP) is 120 days for all cases at the Board. The letter summarizes that the Board had previously notified their organization, the appeal had been assigned to them for over the 120 days, and to date an IHP had not yet been received. They were notified that the case would proceed to adjudication. The Veteran’s appeal has been advanced on the docket. 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2019).  1. Entitlement to service-connection for a right foot bone spur is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service-connection for a right foot bone spur. Specifically, the Veteran contends that his right foot bone spur is related to his back disability. See October 2018 VA Form 9. The Board finds that additional development is required in order to make a fully informed decision in this appeal. Specifically, a review of the record reveals that the Veteran has raised additional claims for VA benefits that must be adjudicated prior to deciding the issue presently on appeal. These issues, which are currently in remand status before the AOJ, include the Veteran’s November 2016 claim for service connection for a low back disability. See March 2017 Board Decision (remanding the issues of entitlement to service connection for right foot bone spur, back disability, hypertension, bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus). The issue of service connection for a back disability is inextricably intertwined with the claim of entitlement to service connection for right foot bone spur related to a back disability presently on appeal since a grant of that claim could affect the Veteran’s eligibility for secondary service connection for a right bone spur. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). The Board cannot fairly proceed while there are outstanding matters that must be addressed by the AOJ in the first instance. Thus, a remand is necessary so that the AOJ can complete the directives of the March 2017 Board decision and to consider the impact of the outcomes on the pending claim for service connection for a right foot bone spur. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding private and/or VA treatment records relevant to treatment the Veteran received for right foot bone spur that are not already of record. All obtained records should be associated with the evidentiary record. If any identified records are not obtainable (or none exist), the Veteran and his representative should be notified, and the record clearly documented. 2. Adjudicate the intertwined issue of service-connection for a back disability. See March 2017 Board Decision. 3. Readjudicate the issue of entitlement to service connection for a right foot bone spur. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and return the case to the Board. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Kaufer, 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.