Citation Nr: 21040191 Decision Date: 07/02/21 Archive Date: 07/02/21 DOCKET NO. 17-01 562 DATE: July 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a growth on chest is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1997 to July 2004. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran timely appealed such decision and requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. However, the Board notes that a Board hearing was postponed and then cancelled at the request of the Veteran, as was discussed in the May 2021 Informal Hearing Presentation submitted by the Veteran's representative. Accordingly, the Board accepted the written argument from her representative in lieu of her testimony and the Veteran's request for a Board hearing is considered withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (e). As an initial matter, the Board notes that the issues of entitlement to service connection for lumbosacral strain, a disorder of the uterus, migraines, and ventricular arrhythmias have been granted by the AOJ and are, therefore, not before the Board for adjudication. The Veteran contends that she suffers from a chronic growth on her chest that was first documented during her active duty service and has continued since such time. The Veteran has further reported that such was diagnosed as a bony prominence during her active duty service in Germany and such condition was treated with Motrin. She claims that this condition has been chronic and that the symptoms of pain and discomfort have continued since service. Furthermore, service treatment records (STRs) discuss a "bony prominence" on the Veteran's chest. The Board notes that the Veteran has not yet been afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of her claimed disorder. In light of the STRs documenting a chest abnormality during service and the Veteran's statements regarding consistent symptomatology since that time, the Board finds that VA's duty to provide an examination and/or opinion is triggered. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Accordingly, a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination so as to determine the nature and etiology of her claimed growth on her chest. The Board also recognizes the Veteran's contention that the record is incomplete, as some of her STRs have not been associated with the file. Accordingly, all reasonable attempts should be made upon remand to obtain all available STRs. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure that all reasonable attempts have been made to obtain service treatment records, to include records from Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. 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, 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); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for her claimed growth on her chest. If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran's condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a "disability" for the purpose of providing the requested opinion(s) below. Following a review of the record and any necessary testing, the examiner is asked to opine as to whether it is at least as likely (50 percent or great probability) the Veteran has a current disability of a growth on her chest that manifested during military service or is otherwise related to service. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report her symptoms and history, and such reports must be considered in formulating any opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports of symptomatology, he or she must provide a reason for doing so. The examiner must consider the STRs dated April 2002 discussing a "slight prominence" in the left chest area where the rib meets the sternum, present for (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) one year, as well as the July 2004 separation physical report noting a bony prominence on the chest. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. TIFFANY HANSON Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Breckenridge 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.