Citation Nr: 21021809 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 14-16 976 DATE: April 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1986 to February 1994 and from May 1996 to September 1996. At the first separation, there was a report of seven years, four months, and nine days of service. There was a record of prior service of seven years, six months, and twenty days following the second period of service. It appears that the service department credited the Veteran with service between the active duty periods. Additionally, the current records on file indicate multiple assignments and periods of active duty for training, inactive duty for training, and active duty for special work. 1. Service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is remanded. The Board previously remanded the Veteran’s claim in December 2015, March 2018, and April 2020. Another remand is warranted to ensure compliance with the April 2020 remand directives. A remand by the Board confers on an appellant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the terms of the remand order and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with those terms. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). As part of the April 2020 remand directives, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) was to obtain service and personal records for the Veteran’s periods of service in the Naval Reserves, including requests “to the Veteran’s reserve unit(s) and the Navy’s Electronic Military Personnel Records System.” A review of the claims file reveals a request for information was submitted in January 2021 using the Personnel Information Exchange System (PIES) and that some personnel records were obtained. However, there is no indication the AOJ sought records from “the Veteran’s reserve unit(s) and the Navy’s Electronic Military Personnel Records System.” The April 2020 remand instructions also requested that the AOJ “[v]erify all active duty for training, inactive duty training and active duty special work dates for alleged service in the Naval Reserve. If necessary, a request should be made to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. The dates of service and their character, e.g. inactive duty training, should be clearly laid out in a memorandum to the record.” The claims file shows that a request for separation pay verification was submitted to DFAS in May 2020 and June 2020. A response was received from DFAS in September 2020, indicating that DFAS records did not reflect any severance or separation pay effective the date of separation. Although a request was made to DFAS, the request pertained specifically to verifying whether the Veteran received severance pay rather than any verification of active duty for training, inactive duty training and active duty special work dates. Additionally, no memorandum was prepared regarding the Veteran’s dates of service and character of service in the Navy Reserves. The Board does not consider this to be substantial compliance with the April 2020 remand directives. Much of the requested development was not attempted or accomplished, and relevant treatment and personnel records may still be outstanding. See Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999). Accordingly, remand to ensure compliance with the Board’s remand directive is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s complete service personnel and treatment records, to include documents pertaining to his service in the Naval Reserve. A request for records should be made to the Veteran’s reserve unit(s) and the Navy’s Electronic Military Personnel Records System. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 2. Verify all active duty for training, inactive duty training and active duty special work dates for alleged service in the Naval Reserve. If necessary, a request should be made to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. The dates of service and their character, e.g. inactive duty training, should be clearly laid out in a memorandum to the record. If the AOJ is incapable of compliance, there should be an explanation in the record.   3. After completing the development above to the extent possible, and only if warranted based on additional relevant records being associated with the claims file, obtain an opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s plantar fasciitis is at least as likely as not related an in-service injury or disease. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s report of foot issues since the mid-1980s. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Morse 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.