Citation Nr: 22018059
Decision Date: 03/28/22	Archive Date: 03/28/22

DOCKET NO. 18-28 076
DATE: March 28, 2022

REMANDED

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from October 1976 to October 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2021, the Veteran testified at a virtual Board hearing before the undersigned. The transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. 

This matter was remanded by the Board in October 2021 to obtain any outstanding private and VA treatment records. While the private treatment records were associated with the record, no VA treatment records were added to the record since September 2021. There also is no indication that attempts were made to obtain the outstanding VA treatment records and that they were simply unavailable. Where the Board fails to ensure substantial compliance, remand is appropriate. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (Board remand confers a right on a claimant to compliance with the remand order); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 147 (1999) (clarifying that substantial compliance with Board remand is required). Accordingly, the Board finds it necessary to remand this issue to complete its development. 

By this remand the Board makes no determination, expressed or implied, as to the credibility of any statements on file.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records for the period from September 2021 to the Present.

2. After completing the indicated development, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction should readjudicate the Veteran's claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case, given the opportunity to respond, and the case should thereafter be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if warranted. 

 

 

KELLI A. KORDICH

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	S. Imam, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.