Citation Nr: 21041600 Decision Date: 07/09/21 Archive Date: 07/09/21 DOCKET NO. 06-28 274A DATE: July 9, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left foot arthritis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right foot arthritis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy of the left foot is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy of the right foot is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities, to include on an extraschedular basis, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in active duty service with the Army from June 1977 to June 1980 to include service with the National Guard from August 1987 to July 2008 with periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). This matter is on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision. The Board notes that a May 2014 Joint motion to modify a Board decision issued by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC or the Court) found that an April 2009 Board decision and in a later October 2013 Board decision noted the Veteran raised entitlement to TDIU, but referred the issue instead of remanding the issue. As such, the Court amended the October 2013 Board decision to reflect that entitlement to TDIU was remanded. The Board remanded this appeal in November 2014, July 2015, January 2018, and September 2019 for additional development. In an April 2020 Board decision, the Board denied entitlement to TDIU to include on an extraschedular basis. The Veteran appealed his denial to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC or the Court). The Court, in November 2020, issued a joint motion for remand (JMR) to vacate and remand the issue back to the Board. The Board finds that remand is warranted for additional development. The Board notes that following the most recent Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) issued in September 2020, additional VA medical records from the VA medical center (VAMC) were associated with the Veteran's claims record. Review of the record shows the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has not issued a SSOC to the Veteran considering the submitted VA medical records from the VA medical center (VAMC). The Board may not consider additional evidence not previously reviewed by the AOJ, unless a waiver of initial AOJ review is obtained from the Veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (c). Although initial AOJ review is automatically waived for evidence submitted by the Veteran because the Veteran's VA Form 9 is dated after February 2, 2013, the automatic waiver does not apply to VA-generated evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (e). In December 2020, a waiver solicitation letter was sent to the Veteran. In January 2021, the Veteran responded and requested that the appeal be remanded to the AOJ for review of the additional evidence submitted in support of his appeal. As such, the claim must also be remanded for initial consideration by the AOJ and issuance of an updated SSOC. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31, 19.37, 20.1304. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding private or VA treatment records. 2. After completion of the above and any additional development deemed necessary, the AOJ should readjudicate the Veteran's claims. If any determination is less than fully favorable, the Veteran and his representative must be furnished with an SSOC and given an opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Yang, Attorney-Advisor 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.