Citation Nr: 22040155 Decision Date: 07/13/22 Archive Date: 07/13/22 DOCKET NO. 19-26 274 DATE: July 13, 2022 REMANDED The issue of whether the Veteran has qualifying services for VA compensation purposes is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2017, the appellant timely submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD). In July 2019, the RO issued a statement of the case (SOC) and in August 2019, the appellant submitted a substantive appeal. The appellant and his representative participated in a videoconference hearing with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in April 2022. A transcript of that proceeding will be attached to the file. The appellant's appeal has been advanced on the docket. 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) (2018); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2021). 1. The issue of whether the appellant has qualifying services for VA compensation purposes is remanded. Based on a review of the record, further development is warranted is required before the Board may render a decision in the instant case. Under VA law, "veteran status" must be established as a condition of eligibility for VA disability compensation benefits. Bowers v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 201, 206 (2013). The term 'veteran' means "a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service." 38 U.S.C. § 101(2). In his January 2017 questionnaire about military service, the appellant reported that his actual birthdate was March 10, 1938, and not July 7, 1936. It is unclear whether the records search requested by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) included both the Veteran's actual and contended birthdates. See March 2018 Request for Information; February 2017 Request for Information. In addition, in his April 2022 Board hearing, the appellant provided details regarding his manner of service, which were not available during the prior records search. He also asserted that he served in the U.S. Army, in the infantry, in 1957, and was on active duty for about 6 months. He also stated that he served in the Reserves until 1966 ("the 90s division, in Henrietta, Oklahoma"). At the time of his hearing, the Veteran additionally submitted a U.S. Army training center, Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, "B" Battery, 2nd Battalion, Basic Training Command, photograph book from August 5, 1957, to September 27, 1957. Accordingly, remand is necessary in order to conduct a final search for any relevant missing records before adjudication on the issue may be completed. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to obtain, through all indicated and appropriate sources, the appellant's service treatment records, clinical treatment records, and personnel records. Such sources should include: (a.) the National Archives and Records Administration; (b.) the VA Records Management Center; (c.) the National Personnel Records Center; (d.) the Department of the Army, to include the Army Reserve Personnel Center and the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. In doing so, the AOJ should note that the appellant has submitted: - copies of his military ID, meal tickets, and an honorable discharge certificate. - In his January 2017 questionnaire about military service, the appellant reported that his actual birthdate was March 10, 1938, and not July 7, 1936 (the date under which he asserts that he enlisted). - In his April 2022 Board hearing, the appellant asserted that he served in the U.S. Army, in the infantry, in 1957, and was on active duty for about 6 months. He also stated that he served in the Reserves until 1966 ("the 90s division, in Henrietta, Oklahoma"). - In April 2022, the appellant submitted a U.S. Army training center, Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, "B" Battery, 2nd Battalion, Basic Training Command, photograph book from August 5, 1957, to September 27, 1957. All efforts to obtain these records should be documented. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile. This determination should be documented in the claims file and the Veteran and his representative must be notified. 2. Following completion of the foregoing, the AOJ should review the record and readjudicate the claim on appeal. If any benefit remains denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate supplemental SOC, afford the Veteran and his representative an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Kaufer, 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.