Citation Nr: 21022371 Decision Date: 04/15/21 Archive Date: 04/15/21 DOCKET NO. 13-34 293A DATE: April 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1979 to July 1982 with subsequent periods of active duty for training (ADT) and inactive duty training (IDT) with the Army Reserves and South Carolina Army National Guard until September 2004. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a November 2016 virtual Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the electronic claims file. Unfortunately, the Veteran died in December 2017 during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse and was properly substituted as the claimant in November 2019. As the substituted claimant, the Appellant seeks service connection for hypertension and tinnitus. The Veteran’s service treatment records indicate that he intermittently reported high blood pressure starting in October 1985. He testified at the November 2016 hearing that he was told that he had high blood pressure by a private examiner in the early 1990s before he was told that he could not attend the National Guard two-week summer training. The Board remanded this matter in November 2017 and September 2020 for further development of the Veteran’s service personnel records in order to verify his ADT and IDT with the Army Reserves and South Carolina Army National Guard. He was with the Army Reserves from 1982 until 1987 and with the South Carolina Army National Guard from 1987 to 2004. In the November 2017 remand, the Board directed the RO to request and associate with the claims file all outstanding Reserve/National Guard personnel records, and contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) and/or any other appropriate source to verify any period of ADT or IDT and associate any responses with the record. Following this remand, the RO requested the Veteran’s Army Reserve and National Guard service personnel records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) at address code 13. The NPRC responded to this request, stating: “THIS REQUEST DOES NOT FIT INTO THE PARAMETERS OF CODE 13. PLEASE REVIEW AND RESUBMIT UNDER THE ADDRESS CODE 7.” The RO did not resubmit the request under address code 7. The RO later associated National Guard personnel records with the claims file in April 2020, but the records list points earned towards retirement (without specific duty period dates) and a detailed report only of the ADT and IDT performed from 2002–2004. The matter returned to the Board in September 2020. The Board remanded the matter in September 2020 after determining that the RO did not substantially comply with the November 2017 remand directives. The Board again directed the RO to contact the NPRC, DFAS, and/or any other appropriate source to verify the dates of all periods of ADT or IDT between July 1982 to September 2004. Following this remand, the RO requested verification of the Veteran’s ADT and IDT periods after 1982. The NPRC responded to this request, stating: “THERE ARE NO MILITARY PERSONNEL OR MEDICAL RECORDS ON FILE AT CODE 13 FOR THIS PERSON.” The RO did not submit a request to the NPRC under address code 7 as NPRC had previously advised, nor did the RO contact DFAS following the September 2020 remand. Regrettably, the Board finds that further efforts are necessary to obtain the Veteran’s service personnel records. Again, the Board finds that there was not substantial compliance with the November 2017 and September 2020 remands. VA’s duty to assist in the development of the claim has not been satisfied because the RO failed to adequately complete the requested development. As the RO did not substantially comply with the remand instructions, another remand is required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271(1998). As indicated in the prior remands, the Veteran’s claim of tinnitus is intertwined with his herein remanded hypertension claim, as the 2012 VA examiner found that the medication the Veteran used for hypertension is “reported in the PDR [physician’s desk reference] to cause tinnitus in some patients.” The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request all of the Veteran’s Army Reserve and National Guard personnel records from all potential records repositories (to include address code 7 and any other potential locations). Again, the Veteran was with the Army Reserves from 1982 until 1987 and with the South Carolina Army National Guard from 1987 to 2004. If all such records cannot be located, specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them. Then: (a) notify the appellant of the specific records that it is unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts VA has made to obtain that evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claims. The appellant must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Contact the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and request that they review the Veteran’s pay records, if possible, to determine the dates and types of all military service performed by the Veteran. That is, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service must determine all service periods when the Veteran was paid from an account designated to pay for active duty for training, and what periods were paid from an account designated to pay for inactive duty training. The Veteran was with the Army Reserves from 1982 until 1987 and with the South Carolina Army National Guard from 1987 to 2004. If such records cannot be located, the RO must specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them. The RO must then: (a) notify the appellant of the specific records that it is unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts VA has made to obtain that evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claims. The appellant must then be given an opportunity to respond. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Tierno 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.