Citation Nr: 21023676 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 14-28 306 DATE: April 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from September 2009 to December 2009 and from April 2011 to November 2012. This matter is on appeal from a February 2014 rating decision of a Regional Office (RO) for Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a November 2017 hearing and a copy of the transcript is associated with the claims file. This appeal was previously denied by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in a March 2018 decision. That denial was subsequently appealed by the Veteran to the United States Court of Veterans Claims (Court). In a January 2019 Order, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) filed by the parties, the Court vacated and remanded the March 2018 decision back to the Board. The claim was remanded by the Board in July 2019 to associate outstanding VA treatment records and to conduct an additional search for Service Treatment Records (STRs). Unfortunately, while the Board regrets additional delay, another remand is necessary because the Board’s prior remand directives have not been substantially complied with at this time. Specifically, the February 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) notes that the RO reviewed the Veteran’s VA treatment records from San Diego VA Medical Center in February 2021. However, the Veteran’s VA treatment records are only update to December 11, 2019. The Veteran appears to seek regular medical treatment through VA and his records do not appear to be complete at this time. As the central issue in this matter is whether the Veteran has a current disability these records may contain pertinent information regarding any treatment for a bilateral knee condition. Since it appears that the prior remand directive regarding associating outstanding VA treatment records has not been complied with the Board must remand the matter for compliance with the prior remand directive to associate all outstanding VA treatment records with the claims file. Additionally, the RO was asked to ensure that all pertinent service treatment records were obtained and made available for review. In this regard the RO undertook development of requesting such records from the Department of the Army and from the California Military Department regarding the Veteran’s National Guard service. In a December 2013 statement in support of claim the Veteran noted that he did not complete a separation examination. Responses from the Department of the Army, associated with the claims file on January 30, 2021, and the California Military Department, associated with the claims file on November 30, 2020, note additional documents that were not of record. The Board’s prior remand had instructed the RO to document whether it had determined that the records sought either did not exist or that further efforts to obtain the type of records identified by the Board would be futile and notify the Veteran of any inability to obtain those records as required by law, however, no such finding or notification is of record. As such the Board requests that such findings be made on remand and the Veteran notified of any unavailable records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records from December 2019 to the present. 2. To ensure compliance with the terms of the JMR in this case, the AOJ should ensure that all pertinent service treatment records maintained during the Veteran’s periods of qualifying service have been obtained and made available for review in the claims file. In accordance with the JMR, the AOJ must issue a formal finding regarding its efforts to obtain the Veteran’s treatment records maintained during his periods of service with the Army and Army National Guard from 2008 to 2012. Further the AOJ must document whether it has determined as is required by law that the records sought either did not exist or that further efforts to obtain the type of records identified by the Board would be futile and must notify the Veteran of any inability to obtain those records, as is also required by law. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board John M. Middleton 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.