Citation Nr: 21042221 Decision Date: 07/12/21 Archive Date: 07/12/21 DOCKET NO. 15-44 416 DATE: July 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, to include injury residuals and osteoarthritis, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty for training service from June 1978 to September 1978 and additional duty with the United States Marine Corps Reserve. This stems from a November 2013 Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) Regional Office rating decision denying service connection. The case has been before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) twice. First in October 2018 and most recently in March 2021. The Board remanded the case each time for further development. The Board finds that further development is still needed and therefore must remand this case. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (where the VA provides a claimant an examination, the examination or opinion provided must be adequate); see also Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (finding that a remand gives the Veteran a right to compliance with the terms of the remand). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, to include injury residuals and osteoarthritis is remanded. The Veteran contends that service connection for are current left knee disorder is warranted as he sustained the claimed disability when he injured his left knee while drilling with his Marine Corps Reserve unit at Charleston Landing in December 1978 to January 1979 time frame. See March 2004 Statement in Support of Claim. The report of an August 1979 Marine Corps Reserve fitness for duty examination notes that the Veteran reported having undergone left knee surgery at Roper Hospital in February 1979. On contemporaneous physical evaluation, the Veteran was found to be not physically qualified for retention in the Marine Corps Reserve. The Board remanded the claim to obtain the full service records for the Veteran. Various attempts have been made to locate the Veteran's applicable service records. However, no finding of unavailability has been made except to Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) records for the periods of January 1, 1978, to June 8, 1978, and September 2, 1978, to December 31, 1980. As such, the October 2018 Board remand directives have not been complied with yet. Therefore, remand is warranted under Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268. The Board also notes that the Veteran has been afforded a VA examination by a contractor in August 2003. However, this examination is inadequate for failing to cite to any evidence to support its conclusory opinion. The opinion states that the condition has existed since at least 1980 in the history of present complaints. However, the question at issue in this case is whether the injury is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran's claim injury in December 1978 to January 1979 in Charleston, SC. Therefore, this examination is found inadequate. As such, a new examination is required. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App, at 311. While the Board is aware that the personnel and treatment records for the claimed period are unavailable, the examiner should proceed as if the injury took place as described by the Veteran. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Invite the Veteran to submit all copies of records or evidence identifying his active duty for training/drill periods and any records pertaining to treatment at that time. This includes the records of the private physician who, prior to the February 1979 knee surgery, informed the Veteran he banged his knee up badly. 2. Contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) or the appropriate service entity and request verification of the Veteran's complete periods of active duty, active duty for training, and inactive duty for training with the Marine Corps Reserve and forward all available service medical and personnel records associated with the Veteran's service for incorporation into the record. Contact that Veteran's drilling unit to attempt to obtain the Veteran's service medical and personnel records as well. All attempts to locate the records should be documented. If the records cannot be located, such a finding should be made. 3. Obtain any pertinent records related to the Veteran's claim for benefits from the Social Security Administration. 4. After the above development, is completed, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his left knee disorder. The examiner must review the claims file. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Is the Veteran's current left knee disability, including osteoarthritis, at least as likely as not related to service, including an injury sustained while laying prone/getting up from a prone position during drill. The examiner's attention is drawn to the February 8, 1979 Hauser procedure performed on the Veteran's left knee two months after the claimed injury. In providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran's description of his/her in-service injury and symptoms as well as his post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported injury and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of his current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran's reports about his symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran's reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? The examiner must provide a full rationale explaining all opinions. The examiner is reminded that lack of corroborating treatment or service records alone is not a sufficient reason to provide a negative medical nexus opinion. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Boushehri, Darjush M. 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.