Citation Nr: 22015397 Decision Date: 03/17/22 Archive Date: 03/17/22 DOCKET NO. 20-05 634 DATE: March 17, 2022 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for frostbite, left lower extremity, is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for frostbite, right lower extremity, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1958 to August 1960. In March 2022, the Veteran testified at a travel board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Entitlement to service connection for frostbite of the left and right lower extremities. The Board finds that additional development is needed prior to final adjudication of the issues on appeal. First, the Board asks that any outstanding treatment records be obtained that support the Veteran's contention that he was hospitalized while stationed at Fort D. in January 1959. See Notice of Disagreement (NOD), November 2019. In addition, it appears that the Veteran served in the United States Army Reserve from August 1960 to October 1964; the Board asks that any outstanding Army Reserve records, to include treatment records, be obtained. Further, based on statements made at the March 2022 travel board hearing, the Board finds that there may be outstanding records pertaining to ongoing treatment that need to be obtained and associated with the claim file. In addition, the Board notes that there are documents in the electronic claim file that require translation. See Military Personnel Record, August 2018; and STR Dental, August 2018; and Correspondence, May 2020. The Board asks that translations be obtained upon remand. Upon completion of the above, the Board asks that the Veteran be scheduled for a VA examination to address the etiology of the claimed disability on appeal. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. After securing any necessary consent forms from the Veteran, obtain any outstanding records, to include any service treatment and personnel records (including Reserve records), as well as any VA and/or private treatment records, pertaining to the issues on appeal. In particular, the Board asks that any outstanding treatment records be obtained that support the Veteran's contention that he was hospitalized while stationed at Fort D. in January 1959. See NOD, November 2019. In addition, it appears that the Veteran served in the United States Army Reserve from August 1960 to October 1964; the Board asks that any outstanding Army Reserve records, to include treatment records, be obtained. Further, based on statements made at the March 2022 travel board hearing, the Board finds that there may be outstanding records pertaining to ongoing treatment that need to be obtained and associated with the claim file. In addition, the Board notes that there are documents in the electronic claim file that require translation. See Military Personnel Record, August 2018; and STR Dental, August 2018; and Correspondence, May 2020. The Board asks that translations be obtained upon remand. All efforts should be documented in the claim file. If any records could not be obtained, this should be noted in the claim file. 2. Upon completion of the above, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to address the etiology of the claimed disability on appeal. For each disability diagnosed, the examiner is asked to address whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that it is related to the Veteran's active duty service. The examiner is asked to specifically address the Veteran's lay statements and contentions regarding ongoing treatment. The VA examiner should be given access to the claim file. The examiner should state that a review of the claim file was completed. The examiner must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached, citing the objective medical findings leading to the conclusions. A detailed rationale is requested for all opinions provided. 3. If upon completion of the above action the issues are denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Foster, 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.