Citation Nr: 0001424 Decision Date: 01/18/00 Archive Date: 01/27/00 DOCKET NO. 98-01 112 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and a friend ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard A. Cohn, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty for training from August 1977 to November 1977 and on active duty from September 1978 to June 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 1997 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri (RO) which denied entitlement to service connection for a back disorder and for a skin disorder. The Board notes that in August 1996, June 1997, August 1997 written statements and in July 1999 Board hearing testimony, the veteran claimed entitlement to service connection for a bilateral leg disorder. The matter is referred to the Board for appropriate action. REMAND The Board notes that the veteran was afforded a personal hearing before the undersigned member of the Board in July 1999. At that time, the veteran contended that all of his active service had not been verified. He indicated at that time that he had been activated from a National Guard unit and upon completion of boot camp was assigned to Germany for several years. He testified that he was stationed at Anderson Barracks in Dexheim, Germany from August 1977 to May 1980, apparently contending that he was either on active duty or active duty for training during the entire period. As noted above, information of record shows that the veteran had active duty for training with the Army National Guard from August 1977 to November 1977 and active duty with the Army Reserves from September 1978 to June 1980. He also contends that he sustained a significant injury to his back and legs sometime between June and August 1978. The Board does note that in previous statements, the veteran also indicated that the injury occurred in March 1977. In any event, the veteran does contend that he has active service which has not been verified by the RO and that it was at that time, he sustained an injury which has resulted in current disability. He asserts that at the very least, his administrative/personnel file should confirm his statements. Although the available records do not corroborate the veteran's statements, the RO should attempt to verify the veteran's contentions in this regard with the appropriate service department officials. The Board notes further, that at the July 1999 hearing, the veteran also reported that he has received medical treatment for both his skin and back disabilities from VA medical facilities since his discharge from service. Specifically, he indicated that he sought treatment from the VA for his back in 1980 or 1981. He also indicated that he received treatment for his claimed skin disorder from the VA beginning in January 1981. The Board observes further, that the veteran also testified that his current treatment physician at the VA attributed the veteran's current back disorder to the veteran's period of active service and that other unnamed VA health care professionals attributed a skin disorder to the veteran's period of active service. No attempt has yet been made to verify these statements. Although the record includes several pages of VA treatment records from 1996 there is no evidence of the veteran's claimed VA treatment for a back or skin disorder immediately following his period of active service or soon thereafter. The VA has a duty to inform a veteran of the requirements for a complete application for benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 77-80 (1995). It is well established that a veteran's statement of what his physician told him puts the VA on notice of the possible existence of medical evidence pertinent to and necessary for a full and fair adjudication of the claim. Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. at 80. In the context of this claim the Board finds that the duty to inform requires that the veteran be advised to provide written statements from physicians documenting medical opinions that there is a causal relationship between a current back and skin disorder and the veteran's period of active service. Furthermore, the Board recognizes that VA has imputed knowledge of VA medical records notwithstanding whether they are included as evidence in a veteran's claims file at the time of a VA decision. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 612-613 (1992) (VA has constructive, if not actual, knowledge of records it generated); Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363, 372-373 (1992) (when VA knows of relevant records the Board must obtain them before proceeding with an appeal). Therefore, because the VA has notice of the possible existence of medical records pertaining to the veteran's claims on appeal here, the RO should attempt to locate the records and associate them with the claims file. In consideration of the foregoing, the Board has determined that further development of the case is necessary to provide the veteran due process of law and full consideration of this appeal. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should advise the veteran to obtain VA physician statements linking current back and skin disorders with his period of active service. The RO also should advise him to provide complete information regarding treatment he received in connection with the opinions including the nature, date and place of the treatment. 2. The RO should request that the veteran identify the VA sources of medical treatment received for the claimed back and skin disabilities following his discharge from service in 1980. Copies of the VA medical records he identifies, and not currently of record, should then be requested and associated with the claims folder. 3. The RO should contact the appropriate custodian of the veteran's service records and determine the dates of all active duty and active duty for training completed by the veteran. The RO should also specifically request a statement as to the veteran's status during the period from August 1977 to May 1980. The request should include a request for the veteran's service administrative/personal file, if deemed necessary. 4. Following completion of the foregoing, the RO should review the claims folder and ensure that all of the aforementioned development has been completed fully and correct incomplete development. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for a back disorder and for a skin disorder. If the RO denies the benefit sought on appeal, it should issue a supplemental statement of the case and provide the veteran with a reasonable time within which to respond. The RO then should return the case to the Board for final appellate consideration. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional development, and the Board does not now intimate an opinion, either favorable or unfavorable, as to the merits of the case. Although the veteran need not take further action until so notified by the RO, the veteran may submit to the RO additional evidence and argument pertaining to this remand. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). S. L. KENNEDY Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1998).