Citation Nr: 21026773 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 17-31 528 DATE: May 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for residual disability from burns on the face, hand, feet, and torso is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residual disability from skull fractures is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a neurological disability, to include carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residual disability from traumatic brain injury (TBI) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the U.S. Naval Reserves which included a period of active duty from January 2005 to July 2005, four months and ten days of other active duty, and over twelve years of inactive service. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) following a Board Remand in May 2018. The Veteran contends that she has residuals from exposure to nuclear weapons reactors. In February 2016, the Veteran completed a Radiation Risk Activity Information Sheet. She noted that she was exposed to radiation from atmospheric and/or underwater detonation of a nuclear device at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Norfolk, Virginia between 1992 and 1993 for operation "Faded Giant" and at Weapons Station Yorktown in Yorktown, Virginia between 1993 and 1995where she supervised the loading and offloading of "nukes." The Veteran indicated that a film badge was not issued or worn. She also indicated in a September 2015 Notice of Disagreement that she suffered burns (left ankle, face, chest, arms, feet, and eyes) due to acceleration of ionizing radiation effects by electromagnetic radar communications at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). The Veteran also contends that she has residuals of an event which took place while she was working at DTRA. In her September 2015 Notice of Disagreement, she noted that in April 2005, she had a seizure and was transported to Dewitt Army Hospital and recuperated within two hours. The Veteran reported that in May 2005, she had another seizure, collapsed without feeling her legs and arms, hit her head, and was transported to Bethesda Naval Hospital. The Veteran noted that she was disoriented, semi blind, semi deaf, and unable to speak for two weeks. The Veteran said that both seizures were attributed to electromagnetic microwave radiation exposure. The Veteran reported that while at Bethesda Naval Hospital, she underwent VA examination for complaints of numb hands and feet as well as eye problems with a blind spot. The Veteran noted that she suffered skull fractures, CTS, and TBI. In its May 2018 Remand, the Board directed, inter alia, "Obtain records of any inpatient treatment at the DeWitt Army Community Hospital (formerly located at Fort Belvoir, Virginia) and at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, for the months of April 2005 through June 2005." In February 2020, the AOJ sent a request for the Veteran's active duty inpatient clinical records for mental health/TBI for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 at DeWitt Community Hospital (Fort Belvoir Community). The service department provided a History and Physical Note/Psychiatry Admission H&P on May 2, 2005, a radiology reports detail, specifically a CT of the head on May 5, 2005, as well as outpatient encounters detail including Veteran's termination examination. In June 2020, the AOJ sent a follow up email request to VAVBASTL/RMC/PIES for information on requests made in February 2020 and noted that "Overall Status" still reads "Incomplete." No response from the service department is of record. The AOJ sent a notice letter to the Veteran in October 2020 informing her that the records were unavailable for review. The AOJ informed the Veteran that all efforts to obtain the needed information had been exhausted, and based on these facts, it was determined that further attempts to obtain the records would be futile. At present, the Board finds that the AOJ's actions upon remand do not establish that the records do not exist and that any further efforts to attempt to obtain them would be futile. VA is statutorily required to obtain all of a veteran's relevant service treatment records, not simply those which it can most conveniently locate. See Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Board finds that the AOJ's actions are incomplete to the extent that there is not an affirmative response from the records custodian making clear that the in-service inpatient treatment records do not exist or, otherwise, that all potential records custodians do not have them. As such, the matter must be remanded because there was not substantial compliance with the Board's May 2018 remand directive. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); see D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 104-05 (2008). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Continue taking any action necessary, to include follow-up requests to all potential service departments and/or records custodian(s), with a request for records of any inpatient treatment for the months of April 2005 through July 2005 Fort Belvoir Community Hospital (formerly DeWitt Army Community Hospital) and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (formerly Walter Reed Army Medical Center which merged with the National Naval Medical Center (also known as Bethesda Naval Hospital). All necessary attempts must be made to obtain such records. If the records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e). Saudiee Brown Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Olson, Patricia 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.