Citation Nr: 21009528 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 12-17 898A DATE: February 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from March 1971 to March 1973, with additional National Guard service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals from a March 2010 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2015, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The Board remanded this matter for further development in December 2015 and March 2018. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. The Veteran relates his current back and neck disabilities to a hazing incident in-service when he asserts he was forced to jump from a building multiple times and fired at with live ammunition. See November 2015 Hearing transcript at 4-6; July 2012 Correspondence. The March 2018 Board remand requested the RO to obtain, with any necessary assistance from the Veteran, records from the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, workers’ compensation records, and private treatment records, as well as National Guard service records. The Board remand also requested the Veteran to submit the photograph that he referenced at the November 2015 hearing. In an October 2018 Subsequent Development Letter, the Veteran was asked to complete an Authorization to Disclose Information form to obtain the requested records. The Veteran did not complete and return the authorization form, so Workers’ compensation and private treatment records were not obtained. In addition, the Veteran did not submit a copy of the photograph he referenced at the November 2015 hearing. Nevertheless, the RO requested the Veteran’s outstanding National Guard records, and the Veteran’s National Guard units responded with service records. In addition, in a July 2019 email, the RO contacted the VA Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) Office at the St. Petersburg Regional Office to obtain records. In a July 2019 response, that office stated it had no record of the Veteran receiving services. Remand is warranted again, as the RO contacted the incorrect office for vocational rehabilitation records. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The March 2018 Board remand instructed the RO to obtain records from the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, which is a state agency, and not a VA office. See Board Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 7 (indicating the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation sent the Veteran for an MRI). Instead, the RO contacted the VA VR&E Office. On remand, attempts should also be made, with assistance from the Veteran, to obtain workers’ compensation and private treatment records. In this regard, while VA has a duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating his claim, that duty is not a one-way street and it is important that the Veteran make efforts to assist VA in gathering evidence relevant to his claim, to include completing and returning authorization forms. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Failure to cooperate with VA in gathering evidence may result in denial of the claim. Any outstanding VA and private treatment records should also be secured. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records. 2. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, obtain any outstanding pertinent private treatment records. 3. Request the Veteran to submit a copy of the photograph of the in-service hazing incident discussed at his Board hearing. 4. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, obtain the following: (a.) All relevant records from the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, which is a state agency and not a VA office (e.g. NOT VR&E), to include an MRI performed after 1997; (b.) All Workers’ Compensation records from a custodial injury in 1988-89 and 1995; and (c.) Any outstanding relevant private treatment records, to include from Dr. Stitham. S. BUSH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. deBruyn, 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.