Citation Nr: 21026364 Decision Date: 04/30/21 Archive Date: 04/30/21 DOCKET NO. 16-56 787 DATE: April 30, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, claimed as secondary to a neck disability, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a migraine headache disability, claimed as secondary to a neck disability, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, claimed as secondary to a neck disability, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a migraine headache disability, claimed as secondary to a neck disability, is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for the claimed disabilities because they are the result of a parachute accident that happened during inactive duty for training. At the October 2019 hearing, the Veteran testified that he sustained a neck injury while serving as a Green Beret in the United States Army Reserve from 1971 to 1977. More specifically, he asserted that he made a parachute jump on July 20, 1974, for a family event and sustained a neck injury, but did not seek medical attention because he did not have broken bones or blood. E.B. testified to speaking to the Veteran following the alleged incident and encouraging him to seek medical attention. E.B. served as a jet master with a background as a medic. E.B. testified that the Veteran had lost his helmet during the activity and that the twist from the jump probably caused the Veteran’s helmet to come off which was why he sustained a neck injury. The Veteran provided photographs of the family day event that are consistent with photographs of himself in the service personnel record. The photographs also show the Veteran preparing to make a parachute jump. E.B. also provided a lay statement detailing observations of the alleged incident. Throughout the period on appeal the Veteran has asserted that the injury occurred during a period of inactive duty training; that he did not seek immediate help; that the incident was witnessed; and that it occurred while in the Army Reserves. An individual jump record in the file shows that a jump was made on July 20, 1974. The service separation form shows that the Veteran earned a parachute badge during service. In February 2020 the claims were remanded to try and verify periods of active duty training (ACDUTRA) or inactive duty training (INACDUTRA). Military personnel records received following the remand include an army reserve retirement card showing a time period of June 1973 to June 1974. The records also show National Guard duty from July 1973 through March 1976. There is also a July 23, 1974, enlistment efficiency report of record coinciding with the month and year of the alleged incident. The preponderance of the evidence tends to show that there is a high probability that the alleged incident occurred during a period of INACDUTRA. Therefore, resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the alleged parachute jump incident is acknowledged as occurring during INACDUTRA. To date, the Veteran has not received a VA examination for the claimed disabilities for the purpose of determining if they are related to the July 1974 jump accident. Therefore, a VA examination is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any cervical spine disability. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report. All tests and studies deemed necessary by the examiner must be performed. Based on a review of the claims file and the clinical findings of the examination, the examiner is requested to provide an opinion on whether it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran has a cervical spine disability that was caused by or is related to inactive duty training, to include a July 1974 parachute jump accident. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions and conclusions. The examiner should specifically address the lay testimony of the Veteran and E.B. regarding the parachute jump and resulting trauma to the neck. The examiner cannot rely solely on silence of the service medical records of a diagnosis or treatment to support a negative opinion. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any right shoulder disability. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report. All tests and studies deemed necessary by the examiner must be performed. Based on a review of the claims file and the clinical findings of the examination the examiner is requested to provide an opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that a right shoulder disability was caused or aggravated by a cervical spine disability. The examiner should also opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any right shoulder disability is related to a July 1974 parachute jump accident. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any migraine headache disability. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report. All tests and studies deemed necessary by the examiner must be performed. Based on a review of the claims file and the clinical findings of the examination the examiner is requested to provide an opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that a migraine headache disability was caused or aggravated by a cervical spine disability. The examiner should also opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any migraine headache disability is related to a July 1974 parachute jump accident. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Cross, 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.