Citation Nr: A25049941 Decision Date: 06/05/25 Archive Date: 06/05/25 DOCKET NO. 220425-238801 DATE: June 5, 2025 ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder, to include mental health disorder. REMAND ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder, to include mental health disorder is REMANDED. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Veteran served in the United States Army with service in Operation Desert Storm and Shield from September 1990 to May 1991, with additional service in the National Guard from September 1986 to September 1992. On August 28, 2019, the Veteran filed an application for service connection for a mental health condition with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). On September 18, 2021, a VA Regional Office (RO) issued a rating decision denying the claim. On April 25, 2022, the Appellant filed a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Appellant elected the Evidence docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2021 rating decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the RO issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this Decision. However, because the Board is remanding the claim on appeal, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the RO in the readjudication of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). REASONS FOR REMAND Under the modernized review system, the Board must remand appeals to the RO to correct pre-decision duty-to-assist errors. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). Here, the record reveals a duty-to-assist error that occurred prior to the September 2021 rating decision; therefore, a remand is required to correct the error. Id. Service Connection Prior to the September 2021 rating decision on appeal, the Veteran submitted his National Guard Report of Separation and Record of Service, showing service in the Army National Guard of the District of Columbia. See November 2018, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. A review of the record shows that the RO made attempts to request the Veteran's National Guard Records. On October 31, 2019, the RO requested the Veteran's personnel file. On January 6, 2021, the RO received a negative response National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) that stated as follows: "DOD has conducted a thorough search for the requested records and no STRS were located." See January 2021, VA 21-3101. On March 2, 2021, RO received an additional response from NPRC that stated, "there are no personnel or medical records at code 13 for this person." See March 2021, VA 21-3101. The RO requested records from the US Army Human Resource Command, however they provided a response that they do "not maintain personnel records prior to 2002." See September 2021, Email Correspondence. On March 17, 2021, the RO mailed a records request to the District of Columbia National Guard. On April 12, 2021, the letter was returned as undeliverable. On April 16, 2021, the RO mailed a records request to the National Guard Base (NGB) Freedom of Information Office (FOIA) in Arlington, Virginia. No response was received. On September 14, 2021, the RO made a DPRIS request and received a negative response. The RO did not make any requests to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). The Board finds the RO should make a further attempt to obtain the Veteran's outstanding National Guard records. While the RO received negative responses from NPRC, US Army Human Resource Command, and DPRIS, in the Board's view, the RO did not exhaust all reasonable efforts to obtain the Veterans National Guard records. Specifically, when the RO received the returned mail from their District of Columbia National Guard request, a new request was not submitted to its current address. No efforts were documented in the file by the RO to find the proper address for the National Guard of the District of Columbia nor were any attempts made to obtain relevant records from DFAS. Additionally, there is no evidence in the file the RO received any response from the NGB FOIA request-positive or negative. The Board finds that in order to fulfill the duty to assist, the RO should make a further attempt to obtain the Veteran's outstanding National Guard records, the existence of which was reasonably raised by the Veteran's National Guard Report of Separation and Record of Service, of record prior to the issuance of the decision on appeal. As they may contain relevant information, a remand is required to obtain them to fulfill the duty to assist. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(c), 20.802(a). The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: Obtain the military personnel records and service treatment records identified and raised in the record prior to the decision on appeal. Verify the Veteran's service in the District of Columbia, based on those records. A request should be made to the proper address for the National Guard of the District of Columbia. A follow up request should be made to the NGB FOIA office. (Continued on the next page) ? If necessary, a request should be made to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Document all requests for information and responses in the claims file. STEVEN V. ADLER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board H.E. Toole, 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.