Citation Nr: 21021820 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 14-31 278 DATE: April 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1968 to April 1970. He died in September 2005. The Appellant is the adoptive mother of the Veteran’s biological son, a minor child, and seeks benefits on his behalf. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2011 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Appellant testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2017. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. In March 2018, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for additional development. The Board finds that there was not substantial compliance with its prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with its remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand); see also D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008) (holding that only substantial rather than strict compliance with the Board’s remand directives is required under Stegall). Entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits is remanded. The Appellant contends that the Veteran’s death was due to active service. Specifically, the Appellant asserts that the Veteran’s cause of death was related to the Veteran’s HIV condition. Review of the claims file shows that the Veteran died in September 2005; however, his death certificate is not of record. During her December 2017 hearing before the Board, the Appellant explained that she attempted to obtain a copy of the Veteran’s death certificate, but that her requests were denied because she was not a member of the Veteran’s family; rather, she is the adoptive mother of the Veteran’s minor son. In March 2018, the Board remanded this matter for more development. Specifically, the Board directed the RO to obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records. In the December 2018 Statement of the Case (SOC) the RO stated that the records from March 29, 2002 to September 15, 2005 were obtained. However, the RO indicated that obtaining treatment records from April 1970 would be futile, not because they could not be obtained, but because there is no death certificate. The Board notes, that VA will make as many requests as are necessary, to obtain relevant federal records and VA must get any identified VA records, regardless of their relevance. Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The RO attempted to obtain a death certificate on the Appellant’s behalf, but a fee was required with the application. VA cannot provide payment to obtain the records, and thus the Appellant must secure these records. The Board acknowledges that the Appellant has had difficulty obtaining the Veteran’s death certificate. However, the Appellant’s adoptive son is no longer a minor and may request the records independently. In addition, the Veteran noted in his April 1995 Application for Compensation or Pension that he receives Social Security Disability. There is no indication that VA has made efforts to obtain the Veteran’s relevant Social Security Administration records. On remand, efforts must be made to obtain those records. See 38 C.F.R.§ 3.159(c)(2); Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all VA treatment records for the Veteran dating from April 1970 through September 2005 and associate them with the claims file. All attempts to obtain these records must be documented in the claims file. The Appellant must be notified of any inability to obtain these documents. 2. Make appropriate efforts to obtain from the Social Security Administration the relevant records associated with the Veteran’s claim for disability benefits. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). Any negative response must be included in the record, and the Veteran must be notified of such inability and informed that he may submit any records he may have in his possession. 3. The AOJ must review this opinion to ensure it is adequate and complies with the Board’s specific remand directives herein. If deficient in any manner, corrective action must be taken at once. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that AOJ compliance with Board remand directives is not discretionary or optional). 4. Thereafter, readjudicate the issue on appeal, considering all evidence of record. If the benefit sought is not granted to the fullest extent, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford the Appellant an appropriate opportunity to respond. The case should be returned to the Board, as warranted. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Quist 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.