BVA9505574 DOCKET NO. 93-09 999 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Diego, California THE ISSUE 1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a disorder of the left ankle. 3. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a disorder caused by exposure to antinerve/biological agents. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Military Order of the Purple Heart ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Stephen F. Sylvester, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran in this case had verified active service from December 1990 to November 1991. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arises from a July 1992 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. The veteran has withdrawn in writing the claims of entitlement to service connec-tion for a right ankle disorder, bilateral hearing loss, chronic tonsillitis, right and left knee disorders, a skin rash of the palms, right and left shoulder disorders, residuals of asbestos exposure, sinusitis, and a deviated nasal septum. Accordingly, the Board will confine its review to those issues listed on the title page. Finally, we wish to bring to the attention of the RO that, pursuant to the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 (1994), compensation is now available for disabilities resulting from the undiagnosed illnesses of Persian Gulf veterans. REMAND At the outset, we note that the dates of all of the veteran's active military service have not been verified. There is verification of service for the period from December 1990 to November 1991. Additional information on file, however, indicates that the veteran had a prior period of active military service of 1 year, 1 month, and 7 days, the dates of which are unverified. According to the veteran, this service was during the years 1977 and 1978. The Board further notes that the veteran was, apparently, a member of the Marine Corps Reserve for a period of approximately 15 years, from December 1976 to November 1991. It is assumed that, during this 15-year period, the veteran had numerous periods of active and inactive duty for training. As of the present time, none of these periods of training have been verified; nor is it indicated whether any of the claimed disorders are alleged to have been incurred or aggravated during such service. Regarding the issues remaining under consideration, there is some question as to the exact nature and etiology of the veteran's claimed back, left ankle, and eye disorders. Service medical records disclose numerous instances of treatment for various back-related problems. However, on VA medical examination in January 1992, barely two months following the veteran's discharge from service, only recurrent low back pain was diagnosed. X-rays revealed lumbar spine changes compatible with Schmorl's nodes. Neurological examination was normal. Such findings raise some question as to whether the veteran does, in fact, have a chronic low back disorder. Turning to the issue of service connection for a left ankle disorder, the Board notes that, at various times during the veteran's active service, he received treatment for variously diagnosed left ankle pathology. Specifically, in July 1991, degenerative joint disease of both ankles, verified on X-ray, was noted. On VA medical exami- nation in January 1992, the veteran was described as experiencing recurrent right ankle pain. However, both radiographic studies and clinical examination were considered normal. This raises the question whether the veteran, in fact, has a chronic disorder of the left ankle. Regarding the issue of service connection for an eye disorder, the Board notes that in December 1977 the veteran received treatment for chemical conjunctivitis of his right eye, the result of an incident in which oven cleaner was sprayed in his eye. In July 1981, the veteran received treatment for chemical keratitis and photophobia of the left eye, caused by the spraying of carburetor cleaner into his face. On a VA eye examination in January 1992, approximately two months following the veteran's discharge from service, photophobia, possibly related to blepharitis, was diagnosed. The RO, in the rating decision denying entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, concluded that the photophobia noted both in service and subsequent thereto is a "developmental" disorder, and, as such, is an inappropriate subject for a grant of service connection. The record does not contain a medical opinion as to whether the veteran's photophobia is congenital or developmental in nature. Finally, the Board observes that, in separate correspondence of July and September 1992, the veteran stated that he had been receiving treatment for the disorders in question from a Dr. Markmen at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Facility at 4647 Zion Avenue in San Diego, California. In that same correspondence, the veteran requested that records of the aforementioned treatment be obtained and reviewed prior to any final decision in his case. It appears that no attempt has been made to obtain the records in question. The VA has the duty to assist the veteran in the development of all facts pertinent to his claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1994). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that this duty to assist the veteran in obtaining and developing available facts and evidence to support his claim includes obtaining private medical records to which the veteran has referred, in addition to adequate VA examinations, including by a specialist, when necessary. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990); Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should verify all periods of active military service for the veteran, and specifically that period of 1 year, 1 month, and 7 days which, according to the veteran, took place during the years 1977 and 1978. In addition, the RO should verify any and all periods of active and inactive duty for training. Following such verification, the RO should secure all service medical records pertaining to the period or periods in question. All such information obtained, including verification of the service dates in question, should be included in the veteran's claims folder. 2. The veteran should be asked to specify whether he attributes any of the claimed disorders to a period of active or inactive duty for training. 3. Any pertinent VA or other inpatient or outpatient treatment records, subsequent to January 1992, specifically including all records of treatment provided for the veteran by the Kaiser Permanente Medical Facility at 4647 Zion Avenue in San Diego, California 92120, should be obtained and incorporated in the claims folder. The veteran should be requested to sign the necessary forms for release of any private medical records to the VA. 4. The veteran should then be scheduled for VA orthopedic and ophthalmologic examinations to determine the nature and etiology of any current low back, left ankle, and eye disorders. All pertinent symptomatology and findings should be reported in detail. The examiners should specifically comment whether the veteran now has chronic disorders of the low back, left ankle, or eyes. In addition, the orthopedic examiner should express an opinion whether the veteran currently suffers from arthritis of his left ankle. Finally, the examining ophthalmologist should comment whether the veteran has any constriction of visual fields, and whether photophobia, if present, is a congenital and/or developmental disability. All such information and opinions, when obtained, should be made a part of the veteran's claims file. The claims folder should be furnished to the examining physicians prior their evaluations to facilitate their study of the case. Following completion of the above actions, the RO should review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claims may be granted. If not, the veteran and his representative should be provided with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and given an ample opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. In this REMAND of the claim for further development, the Board does not intimate any opinion as to the ultimate determination warranted. No action is required of the appellant until he receives further notice. GEORGE R. SENYK Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. 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) (1994).