Citation Nr: 22009586 Decision Date: 02/17/22 Archive Date: 02/17/22 DOCKET NO. 15-35 104A DATE: February 17, 2022 REMANDED Service connection for a low back disability is remanded. Service connection for a right leg disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1979 to June 1982, with additional service with the Army National Guard from April 1994 to April 2001. In July 2019, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with his claims file. This appeal was remanded by the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) in November 2019 for further evidentiary development. Service Connection Low Back and Right Leg Disabilities The Veteran contends that his low back and right leg disabilities are related to his service. At the July 2019 hearing, he testified that he injured his low back and right leg in October 1999, when he was struck by a car while en route to his National Guard training weekend with the 107th Military Police (MP) Company, in Brooklyn, New York. Military personnel records associated with the claims file show that he was transferred to the 107th MP Co in Brooklyn, New York in July 1999. However, there are no records currently in the claims file that indicate he was scheduled for any active or inactive duty for training in October 1999. Thus, the appeal was remanded to obtain any outstanding personnel records. In December 2019, the Regional Office (RO) used the Personnel Information Exchange System to request a copy of the Veteran's Reserve record while he was assigned to the 107th MP Company. However, in March 2020, the RO received a response that simply stated that all available service treatment records (STRs) had been previously uploaded. No additional records were provided, and no other responses were received regarding the outstanding records. Based on the provided response, the Board must conclude that a search for the Veteran's National Guard personnel records was not conducted. As such, the Board cannot find that there has been substantial compliance with the November 2019 remand. A remand by the Board confers on the claimant a legal right to compliance with the remand order. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Compliance with a remand is neither optional nor discretionary, and failure to comply with the terms of a remand necessitates remand for corrective action. Id. Substantial compliance with the remand order, not strict compliance, is required. Donnellan v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 167, 176 (2010); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 147 (1990). The Board's failure to ensure compliance with remand instructions constitutes error and warrants the vacating of a subsequent Board decision. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. The Board sincerely regrets the delay associated with another remand but finds that this remand is necessary to ensure substantial compliance with the Board's prior remand order and to ensure that the Veteran is afforded full compliance with VA's statutory duty to assist. These matters are REMANDED for the following action: Contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) and any other appropriate records repository and request the Veteran's National Guard service records, specifically including all records pertaining to his assignment with the 107th Military Police Company in Brooklyn, New York. Please include in this request all dates of active duty for training and inactive duty for training. All attempts to obtain the requested records should be uploaded to the claims file along with responses received, to include requests made to NPRC and responses therefrom. No action is required of the Veteran until he is notified by VA. However, he is advised of his obligation to cooperate in ensuring the duty to assist is satisfied. Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (2005). His failure to report for any VA medical examination, if requested, may impact the determination made. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The Veteran is also advised that he has the right to submit additional evidence and argument with respect to this matter. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal must be afforded prompt treatment. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Benson, 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.