Citation Nr: 21025756 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 15-24 977 DATE: April 28, 2021 REMANDED The claim to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is remanded. The claim to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Eligibility for financial assistance for specially adapted housing or special home adaptation is remanded. Eligibility for financial assistance for an automobile and adaptive equipment, or adaptive equipment only, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 2003 to February 2005. These matters were remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in October 2017, following testimony before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a May 2016 videoconference hearing. Subsequently, these claims were denied in an August 2019 Board decision. The Veteran appealed the denial of these claims to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated the denial of these claims and remanded the appeal as to these matters to the Board. On review of the record and the Court’s ruling, remand to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) is now required. As noted by the Court, the claims to reopen regarding hypertension and GERD must be remanded for compliance with the October 2017 remand directive that ordered development. Further, as noted by the Court, the claims requesting grants for housing, home adaptation, and automobile and/or adaptive equipment are considered to be inextricably intertwined with such. Accordingly, remand of all claims is now required for the appropriate agency or agencies to be contacted in an attempt to obtain all of the Veteran’s service personnel records and clinical records from Germany. The AOJ should document all efforts to secure such, and should notify the Veteran if such are unavailable. Moreover, since the time these claims were last addressed by the AOJ, a voluminous number of documents have been added to the file. These include Social Security medical records, VA treatment records, and service treatment records. This new evidence was not reviewed by the AOJ. Waiver of a Supplemental Statement of the Case is only potentially applicable to evidence submitted by the Veteran or her representative. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304. As such, on remand, AOJ review of the newly associated evidence and the issuance of a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) if warranted. In rendering a decision, the AOJ should address the contentions regarding service in Iraq and the combat advantage, as noted by the Court. The Veteran remains free to submit any additional evidence or argument regarding these matters, as the matter is being remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The appropriate agency or agencies should be contacted in an attempt to obtain all of the Veteran’s service personnel records and any clinic records relating to the Veteran from the U.S. Army medical facility in Grafenwoehr, Germany. (The Veteran’s service personnel records will presumably show the specific dates that the Veteran served in Germany so that more precise dates of when the Veteran would have been treated at this location may be ascertained). Document the efforts to secure such records. Notify the Veteran of the unavailability of any such records and document this notification. 2. Thereafter, any evidence associated with the file since the last SSOC should be reviewed, and the claims on appeal should be readjudicated. The AOJ’s attention is drawn to the Veteran’s contentions that he should be afforded combat advantage as a result of service in Iraq. If the benefit sought is not granted in full, the Veteran should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. C. KING 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.