Citation Nr: 21024787 Decision Date: 04/26/21 Archive Date: 04/26/21 DOCKET NO. 15-10 342 DATE: April 26, 2021 REMANDED Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a cold injury is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a blood disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active air service from February 1976 to February 1980 and July 1986 to November 1986, and a subsequent period of service in the Air Force Reserves. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. Claims to Reopen In a February 2011 rating decision, the Veteran was denied entitlement to service connection for hypothermia (frostbite), in part, because there was no evidence that the Veteran served in an area with exposure to extremely cold temperatures. The Veteran has indicated that he sustained, and was treated for, hypothermia and frostbite during his in-service training, as well as his period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA). A review of the record reveals that service treatment records (STRs) from the Veteran’s asserted cold injuries during his period of ACDUTRA have not been associated with the claims file. Additionally, the Veteran’s non-medical (personnel) service records from both his active service and ACDUTRA have not been associated with the claims file. Accordingly, upon remand, additional efforts should be undertaken to obtain the Veteran’s missing STRs and service personnel records. Blood Disorder The Veteran asserts that his blood disorder is related to his active service. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that his eosinophilia is the result of hazardous exposure after removal of his mask in a gas chamber during basic training, due to contaminated drinking water while on temporary duty assignment at Camp Lejeune, and/or due to the burning of human waste with diesel during his time in Ecuador. The Veteran’s STRs are absent of any complaint of, treatment for, and diagnosis of a blood disorder. The Veteran’s post-service treatment records reveal that in October 2012 the Veteran was noted as having unexplained eosinophilia. During a January 2014 pulmonary consultation, it was noted that the Veteran’s persistent eosinophilia dated back to at least 2003 and that the exact cause was elusive. As noted above, the Veteran’s STRs from his period of ACDUTRA, and personnel records, from both his active duty and ACDUTRA, have not been associated with the claims file. As such, on remand, additional efforts should be undertaken to obtain the Veteran’s missing STRs and service personnel records. Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Identify and obtain a complete copy of the Veteran’s service personnel records from his active duty service and ACDUTRA. If it is determined that such records are unavailable, the Veteran must be notified of that fact and afforded the opportunity to submit the records on his own behalf. 2. Identify and obtain any outstanding service treatment records from the Veteran’s active duty service and ACDUTRA. If it is determined that such records are unavailable, the Veteran must be notified of that fact and afforded the opportunity to submit the records on his own behalf. 3. Then, conduct any additional development determined to be warranted, to include obtaining any necessary VA medical opinions for the Veteran’s claims of entitlement to service connection for cold injury and blood disorder. 4. Thereafter, readjudicate the appeal. If a decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplement statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Byrd, 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.