Citation Nr: 21030925 Decision Date: 05/20/21 Archive Date: 05/20/21 DOCKET NO. 15-39 881 DATE: May 20, 2021 REMANDED The issue of service connection for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus type II is remanded. The issue of service connection for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus type II is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from March 1959 to May 1969, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam and the U.S. Air Force from August 1972 to July 1982. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2014 rating decision of the Los Angeles, California Regional Office (RO). In April 2018, the Veteran was afforded a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). During the hearing, the VLJ engaged in a colloquy with the Veteran toward substantiation of the claims. Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488, 496-97 (2010). A hearing transcript is in the record. In July 2018, the Board denied the claims. The Veteran appealed the Board decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims (Court). In an April 2019 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the Court vacated the Board decision and remanded the Veteran's appeal to the Board. In October 2019, the Board, pursuant to the Court's order, remanded the appeal for the RO to attempt to obtain the Veteran's October 2012 relevant private treatment records. There was no substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Right and left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy The matters are remanded for the following action: 1. BACKGROUND FOR THE RO ADJUDICATOR Pursuant to the October 2019 Board remand, in November 2019, VA notified the Veteran that, in order for VA to obtain his October 2012 private treatment records, he had to complete and return two forms: VA Form 21-4142, Authorization to Disclose Information to VA and VA Form 21-4142a, General Release for Medical Provider Information to VA. The forms were enclosed. In a December 2019 statement, the Veteran submitted the address and telephone number for a "Dr. Hill" and reported that the medical records were mailed to the "Palm Desert VA in fall of 2014 from Optimal Health." However, the claims file does not contain such records. On January 7, 2020, VA notified the Veteran of having searched the claims file and not finding any records concerning Dr. Hill. VA notified the Veteran to complete and return the two forms from the November 2019 VA letter. The Veteran did not return the two forms to VA. THE REMAND DIRECTIVES FOLLOW. 2. Send the Veteran a VA Form 21-4142, Authorization to Disclose Information to VA and VA Form 21-4142a, General Release for Medical Provider Information to VA. THE VETERAN IS ADVISED THAT HE SHOULD MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO RETURN THE FORMS IN ORDER FOR VA TO OBTAIN HIS OCTOBER 2012 PRIVATE TREATMENT RECORDS, OR ALTERNATIVELY, THE VETERAN MAY MAIL THE RELEVANT PRIVATE TREATMENT RECORDS TO VA. UNDER THE LAW, THE VETERAN HAS A DUTY TO ASSIST AND COOPERATE WITH VA IN DEVELOPING EVIDENCE PERTINENT TO HIS CLAIMS, AS VA'S DUTY TO ASSIST IS NOT A ONE-WAY STREET. Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 68 (1993). (Continued on next page) 3. Ensure all medical and factual development has been completed and readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). An appropriate period should be allowed for response before the case is returned to the Board. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Cohen, Associate 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.