Citation Nr: 21029361 Decision Date: 05/13/21 Archive Date: 05/13/21 DOCKET NO. 20-26 636 DATE: May 13, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to status as a veteran for VA purposes based upon Army National Guard service is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant had service with the Ohio Army National Guard from approximately May 1965 to May 1971, including a period of active duty for training from January to May 1967. The instant matter is on appeal from an April 2018 decision. The Board previously remanded this issue in October 2020 for additional evidentiary development. The case has subsequently returned for adjudication. 1. The claim of entitlement to status as a veteran for VA purposes based upon Army National Guard service is remanded. The Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, but remand is again necessary in order to comply with previous remand instructions. In October 2020, the Board requested that the Regional Office conduct a search for the appellant's National Guard personnel records, to include sources such as the state Adjutant General and the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS). The appellant presently asserts that he was ordered into active duty service on multiple occasions through his six-year period with the National Guard. Thus, his personnel records are needed to determine whether he was activated in such a capacity that he may qualify for VA benefits. In response to the prior remand, the Regional Office requested records from the Records Management Center (RMC) and the Personnel Information Exchange System (PIES). Both systems are VA-based, and traditionally house active duty records from the service departments depending on discharge date and branch of service. National Guard records, however, are commonly stored with the Adjutant General of the state in which the individual served. This is supported by the summary of records locations provided by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Unfortunately, the state Adjutant General was not contacted in the present case in an effort to identify records pertinent to the appeal as requested by the Board in the previous remand. Furthermore, the appellant's representative has indicated that the record may not be complete. Specifically, the April 2021 Appellate Brief points to missing pages from the appellant's submissions, to include his Substantive Appeal and related attachments. On remand, the Regional Office should ensure that the appellant's submissions are complete and associated with the claims file. Thus, remand is necessary to ensure that all indicated and appropriate sources, to include the state Adjutant General, have been searched in order to identify the appellant's outstanding personnel records, as well as ensure the record is complete prior to adjudication. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to identify the submissions that the appellant's representative has asserted are incomplete. If any are indicated, attempt to reassociate the complete submission with the electronic claims file. If such is not possible, or no submissions are identified as incomplete, notify the appellant of the steps taken, and afford an opportunity for him to resubmit these records. 2. Attempt to obtain, through all indicated and appropriate sources, including DFAS, and the state National Guard or Adjutant General, the appellant's service treatment and personnel records. All efforts to obtain these records should be documented. If any 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. This determination should be documented in the claims file and the appellant must be notified. 3. Conduct any additional development as indicated based upon the results of this records search. 4. Following completion of the foregoing, the AOJ should review the record and readjudicate the claim on appeal. If it remains denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate supplemental SOC, afford the appellant and his representative an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Fisher, 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.