Citation Nr: 21020739 Decision Date: 04/08/21 Archive Date: 04/08/21 DOCKET NO. 15-39 019A DATE: April 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1987 through December 1991, October 2001 through October 2002, and April 2003 through June 2003. He had additional service in the United States Air Force Reserve. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 decision of a Department of Veterans’ Affairs Regional office (RO). This matter was remanded in October 2018 to obtain the Veteran’s complete service personnel records, to include all documents pertaining to his service in the United States Air Force Reserve. The case was remanded by the Board again in October 2020. Unfortunately, the Board finds that there had not been substantial compliance with its October 2020 remand directives, and the case must be remanded again. A remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the Board’s remand order. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. at 270-71 (1998). The Veteran was diagnosed with sleep apnea in April 2011. The type and periods of service, to include possible active service, from May 2009 to May 2013 are unclear. The RO was instructed to contact the appropriate agencies and verify the Veteran’s periods of active service, particularly—but not exclusively—for the year 2011. The RO was then to prepare a summary of such dates or to document why such production was not possible. The Board finds the RO’s actions in response to the October 2020 Board remand do not constitute substantial compliance. In a November 2020 notification letter, the RO informed the Veteran that they had contacted DFAS and had been informed that no records were available for the year 2011. The RO requested that the Veteran provide them with any additional information the Veteran thought might be helpful to his claim. There is no indication that records were requested for years other than 2011. A December 2020 deferred rating decision indicates that development was to be done for the period from May 2009 to February 2011, and the RO believed the remand was requesting a DD-214. Lastly, a January 2021 DPRIS response contained many documents relevant to the Veteran’s service; however, there was no summary of verified dates or an explanation as to why such dates could not be verified. As prior remand orders were not complied with, and in accordance with Stegall, a remand for full compliance with the Board's prior remand is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and his representative and ask them to provide the dates of the Veteran’s periods of service, to include active service, ACDUTRA, and INACDUTRA. Inform the Veteran that such dates may be estimated if the Veteran cannot remember the specific dates or does not have documentation containing that information. 2. After completion of the previous action, verify though the appropriate agencies the specific dates of the Veteran’s periods of active duty, ACDUTRA, and INACDUTRA—particularly, but not exclusively, for the year 2011. The RO must prepare a summary of such dates, or document for the record why the production of a summary of service dates is not possible. All efforts to obtain these records should be fully documented. If records do not exist or further efforts to obtain the records would be futile, notify the Veteran and his attorney in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Hicks, 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.