BVA9502938 DOCKET NO. 93-08 081 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral knee disabilities. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Anthony D. Dokurno, Associate Counsel REMAND The veteran performed active military service from January 1943 to October 1945. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for a bilateral knee disability. The threshold inquiry is whether the veteran's claim is well-grounded. Under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991), a person who submits a claim to the VA has the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well-grounded. If the person meets this burden, the VA is obligated to assist in developing facts pertinent to the claim. A well-grounded claim is one that is plausible, that is, meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). The veteran and his representative have submitted the veteran's assertion that his knees were injured in an aircraft crash landing during combat, in active service, and they bolstered this evidence by their submission of a photograph of the wreckage. The veteran asserts that he received in-service treatment for his injured knees, but that the injury has resulted in a bilateral knee condition whose symptoms persist to the present day. The claims file also contains treatment records regarding recent treatment for his bilateral knee condition. The file also contains documentation reflecting the loss of the veteran's service medical records and personnel files due to fire. Accordingly, the Board finds that this claim is well-grounded. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 92-93 (1993); O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 365 (1991). However, though the claim is well-grounded, there are indications that the record before the Board is incomplete and that certain medical records may exist which would assist the Board in its adjudication of this claim. The record reveals that the RO attempted to reconstruct at least part of the veteran's medical record. The veteran signed and the RO submitted information intended to secure the medical data (NA Form 13055). Unfortunately, it does not appear that the veteran or the RO submitted identification data for the unit to which he was assigned at the time of the in-service injury upon which this claim is based, and listed the incorrect injury or treatment for which records were being sought. The NA Form 13055 refers to treatment within the United States for a condition unrelated to the claim now before the Board. A review of the claims file also reveals that Dr. Jay Peterson was requested to provide records from 1974 to 1989 regarding the veteran's condition. The file does contain Dr. Peterson's surgical record dated September 1974, which describes a procedure involving the veteran's left knee. The file also includes Dr. Peterson's surgical record of October 1985, which describes a right knee procedure. However, the record does not contain Dr. Peterson's outpatient and/or office treatment notes, or chronological progress notes, for the same period. Additionally, the October 1985 surgical summary of the right knee procedure does not include notes regarding the veteran's previous medical history or a summary of his condition upon discharge. In light of the above, there appear to be additional and potentially relevant medical records available which would assist the Board in its determination of the issue presented. Accordingly, the VA's duty under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to a well- grounded claim mandates that this case must be REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should request that the veteran identify to the best of his ability all health care providers who have treated him since his separation from service. He should provide, the names, addresses and date of treatment. The purpose of securing this information is to determine if there are any complaints, findings or statements of medical history recorded in these records that would support the veteran's claim. The veteran should be requested to provide any necessary releases. In particular, the RO should attempt to secure copies of the actual treatment records and/or progress notes regarding the veteran's bilateral knee condition, for the period 1974-1989, from Jay Peterson, M.D., and the final hospital summary regarding the veteran's hospitalization in October 1985 from the Westmoreland Hospital, when he underwent right knee surgery. (See VA Forms 21-4142 dated November 6, 1990.) 2. The RO should furnish the veteran the appropriate form upon which he or his representative may enter data regarding the unit to which he was assigned at the time of the crash landing (Bomb Squadron, Bomb Group), and (if the veteran recalls) the unit(s) that accorded him medical treatment immediately after the incident, or at any time thereafter in service. The veteran is advised that identifying his unit is extremely important to assist in the record recovery process. Based upon the veteran's information, the RO should request the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, Missouri, to conduct a search for additional service medical records in accordance with M21-1, Chapter 4, including records from the Office of the Surgeon General. The NPRC should particularly search for the treatment records of field dispensaries, clinics, field hospitals, or base hospitals operating in the vicinity of Air Base A-60, in England, on or about August 16, 1944, the reported date of the veteran's crash landing. (The veteran states that the town was "Great Dunmow.") 3. In light of any additional evidence obtained, the RO should determine whether there is a "reasonable probability of a valid claim," and if so schedule a VA examination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.326(a)(1993). Thereafter, the RO should adjudicate the issue on the title page and any additional issues identified by the veteran, and issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case if the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the veteran's satisfaction. The veteran and his representative should be provided an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration, if otherwise warranted. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion regarding any final outcome. The veteran is not required to perform any action until he is notified by the RO. RICHARD B. FRANK 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) (1993).