Citation Nr: 22018668 Decision Date: 03/30/22 Archive Date: 03/30/22 DOCKET NO. 16-21 252 DATE: March 30, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral shoulder disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1976 to July 1992. He also had Reserve Service from July 1992 to August 2000. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2012 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This appeal was remanded by the Board in July 2019 and August 2021. The Board regrets the delay associated with this remand, especially considering that this matter was the subject of two previous remands. However, another remand is necessary to ensure that the Veteran is afforded full compliance with the statutory duty to assist. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral shoulder disability. In August 2021, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim, in part, to obtain a medical opinion on the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral shoulder disabilities. The Veteran underwent a new examination and an opinion was obtained in December 2021. In a March 2022 Appellate brief, the Veteran's representative stated that he "wonders why the 1978, 1983, 1988 and the 1992 separation active duty physical, reports of medical history and supporting STRs were not discussed by the VA RO or a VA medical examiner." The claims file reflects that the Veteran's complete STRs are unavailable for review. See, e.g., March 2020 VA 21-3101 (documenting in response to the RO's request for the Veteran's complete medical & dental records and entire personnel file at NPRC that "requested records have been sent for upload into VBMS"); April 2012 Rating Decision (indicating that "[i]ncomplete service treatment records were available for review"); April 2012 VA Memorandum (formally finding that the Veteran's complete STRs were unavailable and detailing the efforts made to attempt to locate the specific STRs); March 2012 VA 21-3101 (documenting in response to the RO's request for the Veteran's complete medical & dental records at NPRC that "[t]he personnel record was retired to code 13, the health record was not"); November 2011 Notification letter (notifying the Veteran that "[a]ccording to the service department (RMC & NPRC) contacted, the service medical records needed to process your claim cannot be located"). It does not appear that the RO made a PIES request using Code RV1 ("Reserve Record"). This code is generally used when requesting service treatment records for a Veteran no longer actively servicing in the Reserves when service treatment records cannot be located from the appropriate records custodians. In this case the RO made several unsuccessful PIES requests, but none of these requests used Code RV1. See M21-1,III,ii,2,B,1,b. The failure to make appropriate PIES requests using Code RV1 amounts to a duty to assist error. Although the Board regrets the need for further delay, this appeal must be remanded to correct that error. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should make appropriate efforts to obtain complete copies of the Veteran's service treatment records. These efforts should include new appropriate requests using the PIES system using request code RV1 for any records associated with his service in the Army Reserve, and any other procedures required by VA Adjudication Procedures Manual, M21-1, Part III, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section B. Afford the Veteran and his representative a reasonable opportunity to submit any STRs in the Veteran's possession. If any additional records are located by the RO or submitted by the Veteran, the records should be associated with the Veteran's claims file. If complete STRs cannot be located or are otherwise unavailable, the Veteran should be notified, and a formal finding of unavailability must be included in the claims file. All efforts to obtain the records must be documented. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Oquendo, L., 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.