Citation Nr: 21020994 Decision Date: 04/09/21 Archive Date: 04/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-04 139 DATE: April 9, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for ischemic heart disease is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from February 1967 to December 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2013 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in April 2021. Service connection for ischemic heart disease is remanded. The Veteran contends that his diagnosed atherosclerotic coronary artery disease should be granted service connection on a presumptive basis due to exposure to Agent Orange while in active duty service. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not contain complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for any heart condition and the Veteran does not report otherwise. In a January 2013 rating decision, the Veteran’s claim was denied as the RO held that, while the medical evidence shows that ischemic heart disease is currently disabling to a compensable degree, the medical evidence failed to show that the disability became compensable within the time period specified under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. At his Board hearing in April 2021, the Veteran testified that he filed the claim for service connection for ischemic heart disease after his doctor at the VAMC told him he was exposed to Agent Orange and encouraged him to seek service connection. The Veteran reported that his service-connected disabilities have led to him not being as active as he used to be, and his weight gain began after his heart problems arose. While his back disability prevented him from engaging in physical activity, he stated that he gained very little weight due to his back issues. Veteran additionally testified that he has been receiving treatment for his heart at a private facility and has gone three to four times in the last few weeks with upcoming treatment scheduled. He also takes three different medications to treat his heart disability. See April 2021 Hearing Transcript. In light of the Veteran’s testimony, the Board finds that this claim must be remanded to obtain outstanding (non-VA) and VA medical records before the case can be adjudicated. The most current medical treatment records on file are from January 2013 and based on Veteran’s lay testimony, his missing private medical treatment records for his heart disability are relevant to this claim; therefore, the Veteran should be given the opportunity to provide a release for the records or obtain the records and provide them to VA. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)(2). The duty to assist extends to providing assistance to obtain sufficiently identified VA medical records or records of examination or treatment at non-VA facilities authorized by VA, regardless of their relevance. Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786, 793 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the RO should obtain upon remand all of the Veteran’s relevant VA or non-VA medical records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Identify and obtain any outstanding VA and private treatment records, to include treatment records from non-VA facilities in Florence, Alabama and associate them with the claims file. All requests and responses for the records must be documented. If any identified records cannot be obtained, notify the Veteran of the missing records, the efforts taken, and any further efforts that will be made by VA to obtain such evidence, and allow him an opportunity to provide the missing records. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Zarar Ahmed, Attorney Advisor 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.