Citation Nr: 21024727 Decision Date: 04/26/21 Archive Date: 04/26/21 DOCKET NO. 17-18 291 DATE: April 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to status as a veteran for purposes of VA benefits. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant served with the Michigan Army National Guard (MIARNG) from July 1983 to April 1989 and received a discharge under other than honorable conditions. She filed a claim for VA benefits in April 2013. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied the claim on the grounds that she did not have proper status as a veteran for VA purposes. She appealed. In October 2019, the appellant testified before the undersigned. A transcript of the proceedings has been associated with the record. In December 2019, the Board remanded the appeal for further development. Historically, the appellant attended the University of Michigan Detroit and enlisted in the MIARNG as a non-scholarship Simultaneous Membership Program Cadet with a four-year service obligation in the Reserve Component. She underwent a physical examination in May 1983 for attendance at ROTC Basic camp. She signed a Statement of Understanding of Reserve Obligation in July 1983 but was disenrolled from the ROTC program in December 1983. Under these circumstances, the Board finds it necessary to again remand the matter to attempt to obtain records documenting whether the appellant participated in an ROTC program, to include having a service obligation, and to attempt to obtain clarification regarding the interplay between the non-scholarship Simultaneous Membership Program and ROTC, to include the appellant’s attendance at Basic training and duty status, any requirements for attending Basic training if she had completed Basic camp, and her service obligation upon disenrollment from the ROTC program. Additionally, a remand is necessary to request military pay records from the State Adjutant of the MIARNG and the ROTC program. While the AOJ has requested information from DFAS, there is no evidence that the AOJ has contacted the MIARNG for relevant pay records for the purpose of attempting to verify the appellant’s active duty, active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and/or inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) with the MIARNG. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), the Records Management Center (RMC), the appellant’s Reserve unit(s) or any other appropriate repository of records and request the complete service personnel and treatment records, to include: • Any additional records pertaining to any treatment the appellant received while in the National Guard, to include any treatment she received while stationed in Germany; and • Any records specifying the appellant’s dates of active duty, annual training, ACDUTRA, and INACDUTRA, to include any Statements of Service or special orders indicating that the appellant was assigned to any other status other than Reserve status. • A request should be made for the appellant’s Military Master Pay Account via the state National Guard and Reserve Headquarters. • After the evidence is gathered, the RO should prepare a memorandum for the file which identifies all periods of service, to include Reserve service which may be qualifying for service connection purposes, whether ACDUTRA or INADUTRA, or ROTC service. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified and this should be documented for the record. Required notice should be provided to the Veteran and her representative. 2. Contact all appropriate source(s), including, but not limited to, The University of Michigan Detroit, the Department of the Army Reserve Officer Training Command, and the Michigan National Guard, and request all records pertaining to the appellant’s participation in a ROTC program, to include any record documenting her service obligation for participation in such program. The AOJ should also seek clarification from the appropriate source(s) regarding the interplay between the non-scholarship Simultaneous Membership Program and ROTC, to include setting forth the differences between a non-scholarship Simultaneous Membership Program and a scholarship Simultaneous Membership Program and identifying the appellant’s service obligation upon completion of the various programs. All requests for records, as well as any responses received, should be documented in the record. 3. Following any additional development deemed appropriate, readjudicate the claim. If the claim remains denied, the appellant and her representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period of time to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael J. O’Connor 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.