Citation Nr: 21032819 Decision Date: 05/28/21 Archive Date: 05/28/21 DOCKET NO. 16-22 683 DATE: May 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for alcohol dependency/abuse, to include as due to service-connected disability, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for memory loss, to include as due to service-connected disability, is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee Osgood Schlatter's disease is remanded Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease is remanded. Entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1992 to July 1997. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). REASONS FOR REMAND In September 2018, the Board remanded the Veteran's above-captions claims. The issues of entitlement to an increased rating for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and entitlement to TDIU were remanded for additional development and re-adjudication. After undertaking the requested development, the RO re-adjudicated these claims and issued a supplemental statement of the case in June 2020. The other issues were remanded for issuance of a statement of the case after receipt of a timely notice of disagreement. See Manlicon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). The RO issued a statement of the case in June 2020. The June 2020 statement of the case and supplemental statement of the case were returned as undeliverable. No additional mailings were undertaken by the RO. Including and since the September 2018 Board remand, the evidence of record includes at least four mailing addresses for the Veteran. The Board is unable to discern which is the correct address, if any. As such, and because it appears the Veteran has not received the June 2020 statement of the case or supplemental statement of the case, a remand is required. The Veteran is advised that corresponding to VA's duty to assist him in obtaining information is a duty on his part to cooperate with VA in developing his claims. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) (noting that "[t]he duty to assist is not always a one-way street"). VA's duty must be understood as a duty to assist the Veteran in developing his claims, rather than a duty on the part of VA to entirely develop the claims with the Veteran performing a passive role. Turk v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 565, 568 (2008). Moreover, it is generally the Veteran's burden to keep VA apprised of his whereabouts. If he does not do so, VA is not obligated to "turn up heaven and earth to find him." Hyson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 262, 265 (1993). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to verify the Veteran's current mailing address, email address, and telephone number. Each attempt to verify must be documented in a report of contact and each of those reports must be associated with the claims file. 3. Once the above information is verified, re-issue the June 2020 statement of the case, supplemental statement of the case, and any additional information returned to VA as undeliverable. Inform the Veteran that to vest jurisdiction over the issues in the statement of the case with the Board, a timely substantive appeal must be filed. If the Veteran perfects an appeal as to these claims, it must be certified to the Board for appellate review. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Sean G. Pflugner, 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.