Citation Nr: 21010141 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 16-56 326 DATE: February 24, 2021 REMANDED The issue of service connection for an achilles tendon disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service in the US Army from April 1965 to March 1968. The Veteran also had additional service with the Army National Guard from October 1973 to February 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision of a VA Regional Office (RO). The Veteran’s appeal was last before the Board in November 2019, when the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and denied service connection for an achilles tendon disability. While on remand, the Veteran’s claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss was granted in a July 2020 rating decision. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision denying service connection for an achilles tendon disability to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the parties agreed to remand and vacate the portion of the Board’s November 2019 decision. In an August 2020 order, the Court vacated and remanded the appeal. The issue of service connection for an achilles tendon disability is remanded. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) from his Army National Guard service includes a March 10, 1977 “statement in lieu of current medical examination,” where the Veteran self-reported that he was treated for achilles tendonitis in August 1975. The Veteran contends he injured his foot while running in formation when a fellow guardsman stepped on his foot. The Veteran contends that his current achilles tendon disability is a result of this incident. The Veteran is competent to report the incident he alleges was the cause of his foot disorder. He has not had a VA examination to determine whether it was cause of the disorder. The record reflects the Veteran is in receipt of social security administration (SSA) benefits. On remand efforts should be made to obtain these records and associate them with the claims file. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s federal records from SSA. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his achilles tendon disability. The examiner must review the claims file. If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran’s condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a “disability” for the purpose of providing the requested opinion below. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Does the Veteran have an achilles tendon disability? If the Veteran has an achilles tendon disability, was it incurred as he has alleged, (when in 1975, a fellow National Guardsman stepped on his foot while running)? (Continued on the next page)   The examiner is advised that in providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran’s description of his in-service injury and symptoms as well as his post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the Veteran’s account of the reported injury and symptoms in service and thereafter, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran’s reports about his symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran’s reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? 3. If the benefits sought are not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. McDuffie, 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.