Citation Nr: 21028765 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 16-15 962 DATE: May 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability, alternatively claimed as residuals of a right eye injury is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, claimed as high blood pressure is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bleeding ulcers is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a stroke is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from November 1976 to May 1977. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). These matters were previously before the Board in September 2018. At that time, the Board found that the March 2016 statement of the case (SOC) was the first time the Veteran's claims were adjudicated on the merits of service connection. However, at this juncture, the Board finds that the procedural history is as follows: In a January 2013 rating decision, via the rating codesheet, the AOJ adjudicated the claims for service connection on the title page above, in April 2013 a notice of disagreement was received, a March 2016 statement of the case was issued and a timely April 2016 VA form 9 perfected the appeal. Thus, the appeal of the claims listed above has been pending and the Board will proceed with appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability, alternatively claimed as residuals of a right eye injury is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, claimed as high blood pressure is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for bleeding ulcers is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a stroke is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for his back disability, right eye disability, hypertension, bleeding ulcers, and stroke. On the Veteran's April 2016 VA form 9, the Veteran stated that records from Fort Jackson, SC Army Hospital should be reviewed. The Veteran expressed that he was in the hospital between November 14, 1976 to November 30, 1976 for his right eye injury and hypertension was discussed. In June 2016, the Veteran's representative noted that the Veteran identified in-patient hospital records from Fort Jackson, SC for November 1976 that are not of record. In July 2016, the Veteran provided service treatment records from Fort Jackson, SC Army Hospital. It is unclear whether the request to obtain outstanding service treatment records has been fulfilled. As such, the AOJ should request any outstanding service treatment records, if available, and provide documentation. In addition, the Veteran has not been provided VA examinations discussing the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed disabilities. As such, this matter must be remanded in order to provide the Veteran with VA examinations. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Obtain any outstanding service treatment records, to include records from Fort Jackson, SC Army Hospital between November 14, 1976 to November 30, 1976. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. (Continued on the next page) 3. After records development is completed, schedule the Veteran for appropriate VA examinations to determine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current disability of the back, right eye, hypertension, bleeding ulcers, and stroke had its onset during ACDUTRA or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In providing all the above opinions, the examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file. A clear rationale for all opinions is requested and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M.D. 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.