BVA9506533 DOCKET NO. 92-19 563 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral leg and/or knee disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans INTRODUCTION This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Albuquerque, New Mexico, Regional Office (RO). The claimant had active duty for training from July 13, 1981, to August 29, 1981. The case was remanded by the Board for further development in October 1993. During the course of the appeal the veteran changed her representative from AMVETS to the Disabled American Veterans. The case has been returned to the Board for further consideration. REMAND The service medical records reveal that the claimant complained of pain in both knees during basic training. On an undated treatment record, chronic sprain both knees, secondary to physical activity, was diagnosed. On a follow-up examination dated August 24, 1981, sprain secondary to physical activity was diagnosed. A separation examination is not of record. In a private physician's statement dated in April 1991, bilateral superior medial plica in both knees was noted. In a treatment report dated in May 1991, muscle atrophy and osteoporosis were diagnosed. X-rays of the knees showed marked thinning of both femoral and tibial cortices. The development requested in the October 1993 remand has not been completed, as requested. At that time we were, among other things, concerned about the absence of a service discharge examination. We requested that the RO obtain a copy of the separation examination from the claimant's Army National Guard unit, and, if a separation examination was not performed, this should be certified by the claimant's unit. In response to this, the RO requested all service medical records, including the separation examination. The National Guard unit then furnished copies of the same service medical records which were previously in the claims folder. The service discharge examination was not included among them, and we cannot explain its absence with any greater clarity now, than we could at the time of the October 1993 remand. We also requested that the RO obtain complete treatment records from Dr. Altman. The RO contacted the veteran by letter in December 1993, to secure an authorization for Dr. Altman to release his records. The veteran did not respond to the letter. No further action need be taken by the RO with regard to this unless the veteran furnishes the requested authorization. We also requested that the veteran be accorded a VA examination, giving details as to the purpose of the examination and the information that was required. Such an examination was never scheduled. The veteran's representative took exception to this in an informal hearing presentation in February 1995. Accordingly the case is remanded for the following action: 1. The RO should contact the claimant's Army National Guard unit and request a copy of her separation examination report. If a separation examination was not performed on the claimant, or if the unit does not have the service discharge examination, this should be certified by the claimant's unit. If these efforts to obtain the service discharge examination have negative results, and if it cannot be stated with certainty that a service discharge examination was not performed, the RO should ascertain if the service discharge examination is at the National Personnel Records Center. If so, it should be obtained for association with the claims folder. 2. Following the above-requested development, and, irrespective of whether any other evidence is obtained, the RO should schedule a VA orthopedic examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current bilateral leg and/or knee condition. All indicated studies should be performed. The claims file should be made available to the examining physician prior to the examination for review of the claimant's pertinent medical history. The physician should be asked to render an opinion as to whether a bilateral leg and/or knee disorder exists, and, if so, whether the complaints noted during active duty for training, were manifestations of the current disorder. The physician's opinion should include the complete rationale for any opinion expressed. When the requested development is completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO. If service connection for a bilateral leg and/or knee disorder remains denied, the RO should prepare an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and provide it to the claimant and her representative, giving them ample opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further consideration. BRUCE E. HYMAN 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).