Citation Nr: 23040862 Decision Date: 07/26/23 Archive Date: 07/26/23 DOCKET NO. 19-34 561 DATE: July 26, 2023 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability, to include bilateral plantar fasciitis, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from October 1984 to January 1986, December 1988 to April 1989, February 2002 to October 2002, and January 2004 to July 2007, and additional unverified service in the Army National Guard. This case comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran expressed timely disagreement with the AOJ's determination, and the present appeal ensued. Clarification of issue on appeal The Veteran attributes his bilateral foot disability, claimed as plantar fasciitis, to his active service. The Veteran noted that he had sore feet in service and that disability has continued to the present. Pursuant to Clemons, the Board finds it appropriate to recharacterize the Veteran's appealed issue to entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis. Clemons v. Shinseki, Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis, is remanded. The Veteran asserts that he incurred a bilateral foot disability in service. The Veteran was provided with a VA medical examination in October 2018. The October 2018 examiner noted that the Veteran's service treatment records do not contain complaints or treatment of bilateral foot pain and concluded that the first documentation of foot pain appears in a March 2018 medical note. However, the examiner did not address the Veteran's lay statements of pain having begun during service. The Board also notes that a November 1988 note indicates a diagnosis of pes planus. In light of above, the record for review by the Board is inadequate for the purpose of adjudicating the Veteran's appeal, as the medical nexus inadequately addresses the existence of pes planus noted in November 1988, and the Veteran's statements in general regarding the onset and continuity of his bilateral foot pain since service. Thus, a remand is necessary to obtain an adequate medical opinion. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 (2007). Further, the Board observes that the AOJ has not undertaken the necessary development of determining the nature of the Veteran's National Guard service. This development is critical in this case, as the criteria to establish service connection for disabilities may have been incurred during periods active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty training (INACDUTRA). Specifically, while service connection may be established for disabilities resulting from injuries incurred on periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA, service connection is warranted for diseases initially manifesting on periods of ACDUTRA only. With the above in mind, it is crucial to determine the Veteran's periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA and the etiology and date(s) of initial manifestations of his claimed bilateral foot disability. To this end, the AOJ should obtain the Veteran's pay stubs for his service in the Army National Guard in an attempt to determine whether he was serving on ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA at any given time. All actions undertaken in this pursuit must be commemorated in the file. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The AOJ should verify the dates of the Veteran's service in the Army National Guard, to include the dates of all periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. A summary of all dates of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA served by the Veteran must be associated with the claims file. A listing of the Veteran's retirement points for his National Guard service will NOT suffice to address this remand directive. If necessary, the Veteran's complete personnel file and pay stub from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) and Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), respectively, should be sought and obtained. 2. Thereafter, the AOJ must obtain an addendum medical opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's asserted foot disability/disabilities. The complete electronic record must be made available to, and reviewed by, the VA examiner prior to conducting the examination, to include the AOJ's summary of all of the Veteran's periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA in the Army National Guard. The examiner is encouraged to transcribe all symptoms reported by the Veteran. Thereafter, the examiner must address the following: (a.) Identify all disabilities affecting the Veteran's bilateral feet, to include plantar fasciitis and pes planus. (b.) For each diagnosis identified in part (a), provide an approximate date of the initial onset of associated manifestations (month and year). (c.) For each diagnosis confirmed in part (a), provide an opinion concerning whether the is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) proximately due to or the result of any instance of the Veteran's service, to include his National Guard service. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, this should be so stated along with supporting rationale. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to the particular question. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. W. Morgan, 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.