Citation Nr: 21025943 Decision Date: 04/29/21 Archive Date: 04/29/21 DOCKET NO. 17-45 244 DATE: April 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disorder, to include hyperopia, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from January 1982 to September 1985. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A Board hearing was held before the undersigned in November 2018. A transcript of the hearing is of record. These matters were previously before the Board in June 2019 when they were remanded for further development. A December 2020 rating decision granted service connection for a right knee condition. As the decision constitutes a full grant of the claim previously before the Board, the matter is no longer before the Board and will not be discussed further. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disorder, to include hyperopia, is remanded. The Board finds remand is needed as there has not been substantial compliance with the June 2019 remand. A remand by the Board confers on the Veteran, as a matter of law, a right to substantial compliance with remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure substantial compliance with the terms of the remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). If the Board proceeds with final disposition of an appeal, and the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has not substantially followed the remand orders, the Board itself errs in not ensuring substantial compliance. Id. In the June 2019 remand order, the Board directed the AOJ to schedule the Veteran for VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed back and right eye conditions. In determining whether any diagnosed back condition was related to service, the Board asked the examiner to explicitly address the Veteran’s in-service specialty as a security police specialist and his related duties. Additionally, regarding whether any diagnosed right eye condition was related to service, the Board asked the examiner to explicitly address the Veteran’s reports of an in-service grenade explosion and related vision impairment. However, in the subsequent VA examinations conducted in September 2019 and December 2020, the examiners failed to explicitly address the aforementioned contentions. Therefore, remand is required to ensure substantial compliance with the above prior remand directives. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. 271. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the Veteran’s claims file to the December 2020 VA examiner, or another examiner if he or she is unavailable, for an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s back condition. After a review of the Veteran’s claims file, the examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) the Veteran’s back condition is related to his duties as a security police specialist. A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions or conclusions expressed. The Veteran is competent to attest to observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. 2. Return the Veteran’s claims file to the September 2019 VA examiner, or another examiner if he or she is unavailable, for an addendum opinion. After a review of the Veteran’s claims file, the examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) the Veteran’s right eye condition is related to his reports of an in-service grenade explosion and related vision impairment. (Continued on next page) A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions or conclusions expressed. The Veteran is competent to attest to observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Jiggetts 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.