Citation Nr: 21026399 Decision Date: 05/03/21 Archive Date: 05/03/21 DOCKET NO. 13-26 713 DATE: May 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral lower extremity skin disorder, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from October 1969 to August 1971, to include verified service in the Republic of Vietnam from August 1970 to August 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2012 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In that rating decision, the RO denied entitlement to service connection for a bilateral lower extremity rash. In August 2017, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a bilateral lower extremity rash. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In October 2018, the Court vacated the Board's August 2017 decision and remanded the case for compliance with a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion). The parties to the Joint Motion directed the Board to remand for a skin examination. In May 2019 and January 2021, the Board remanded the matter for further development. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral lower extremity skin disorder, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. Although additional delay is regrettable, an additional remand is necessary to allow the Board to make a fully informed decision regarding the Veteran's claim. In the January 2021 remand, the Board noted that attempts to obtain the Veteran's private treatment records were made following the May 2019 remand; however, some private treatment records appeared to be outstanding or responses from those providers regarding the status of the Veteran's treatment records were not included in the file. Thus, the Board remanded the case with specific instructions to secure the proper authorizations for the private treatment provider Dr. D.G., specifically identified by the Veteran, and to make two attempts to obtain all records of treatment or examination. The Board also directed the AOJ to provide the required notice and opportunity to respond to the Veteran and his representative if the records are unable to be secured. A review of the record shows that, in January 2021, the AOJ requested that the Veteran complete and return a VA Form 21-4142a, General Release for Medical Provider Information form, so that VA could obtain treatment records from the Veteran's private medical sources. In the correspondence, the AOJ specifically requested that the Veteran fill out a form to allow VA to retrieve medical records from Dr. D.G. In response to the AOJ's request, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-4142a that listed private treatment providers for an unrelated claim for service connection for lung cancer. He did not provide a release for records from Dr. D.G. and the AOJ did not make any further attempts to obtain a release pertaining to these records. Therefore, the AOJ did not substantially comply with the January 2021 remand directives and remand is necessary. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding veterans are entitled to compliance with Board remand instructions). In addition, the Board notes that in a January 2020 VA Form 21-4142a, the Veteran identified an additional private treatment provider relevant to this claim, Dr. C.C. On remand, attempts should be made to obtain treatment records from Dr. C.C. as well as Dr. D.G. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, make reasonable efforts to obtain records of his private treatment from all indicated sources, including from Drs. D.G. and C.C., as identified in a January 2020 VA Form 21-4142a. If any requested records cannot be obtained, inform the appellant and tell him what efforts were made to obtain the records and what additional actions will be undertaken with regard to his claim. J. B. FREEMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Osegueda, 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.