Citation Nr: 21010167 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 12-13 674 DATE: February 24, 2021 REMANDED 1. Entitlement to service connection for pes planus is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for diverticulitis is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for headaches is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral shin splints is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection fora kidney disability, to include kidney stones is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from February 1990 to May 1993. Within the DD Form 214 for this period of service, it shows that she had prior service for three years and seven months, but there is no DD Form 214 showing that period of active duty. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2009 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia. In her May 2012 Substantive Appeal, the Veteran requested a videoconference hearing before the Board. In March 2015, the Veteran requested that her hearing be rescheduled. The Veteran did not report to her rescheduled October 26, 2015 hearing, and submitted a statement on October 29, 2015 stating that she did not have timely notice of the hearing. The Board remanded the appeal to reschedule the hearing in August 2016. The Veteran was scheduled for a hearing on April 21, 2017, but she cancelled the hearing prior to that date. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran has waived her right to a hearing prior to adjudication of this appeal. In September 2017, the Board remanded the matters to obtain the Veteran’s records from Oak Knoll Naval Hospital and to have the RO ask the Veteran to identify any additional relevant medical records in connection to her claims. The Board finds there has been substantial compliance with those directives. Following the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case in February 2020, the Veteran attempted to have her claims reviewed under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) by submitting a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement). In October 2020, the Board informed the Veteran that her claims were not eligible for consideration under the AMA and explained why they could not be considered under the AMA. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claims for service connection so that she is afforded every possible consideration. In April 2020, the Veteran submitted additional evidence pertaining to her claims, including an Authorization for Disclosure of Medical or Dental Information for VA to obtain inpatient and outpatient medical records from Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon, Georgia. A review of the record does not show that an attempt to obtain the treatment records from Eisenhower Army Medical Center has been made. Thus, the claims must be remanded for the agency of original jurisdiction to attempt to obtain the records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the file any medical records from Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon, Georgia. 2. After undertaking any additional development which may be necessary, the AOJ should readjudicate the claims based on the entirety of the evidence, to include consideration of all evidence added to the record since the issuance of the February 2020 supplemental statement of the case for the issues on appeal. A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Griffin, 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.