BVA9503406 DOCKET NO. 93-13 157 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of low back strain. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard E. Coppola, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from August 1990 to March 1991. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of October 1991 from the St. Petersburg, Florida, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for left knee patello-femoral syndrome and residuals of low back strain. The RO also denied service connection for adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features characterized by an eating disorder and asthma; however, the veteran specifically indicated in the notice of disagreement that she was not appealing these latter determinations. Subsequently, the Hearing Officer granted service connected for left knee patello-femoral syndrome. In August 1992, the RO implemented that decision and assigned a 10 percent rating, effective from March 7, 1991. REMAND The veteran claims that she began having low back pain in October 1990 coincident with physical training. She maintains that she injured her low back in January 1991 when she sneezed and as a result she was treated for muscle strain. The available service medical records show that she was seen on December 29, 1990, for low back pain. There were no reported findings included in that treatment record. The veteran was given Motrin for pain and advised to return to sick call the following Monday if the pain persisted. There are no additional records of in-service treat- ment for low back pain. At the personal hearing, the veteran testified that she has received post-service treatment for continued back symptoms from Donald Colista, her physical therapist. At the conclusion of the hearing, the RO indicated that a decision regarding service connection would be deferred pending receipt of pertinent records. The RO did not request physical therapy records from Mr. Colista. The Board finds that a request for these records is necessary given the fact that the RO indicated an active role in obtaining these records and stated that a decision would be deferred pending receipt of these records. The representative argues that the veteran's service medical records are currently incomplete and that addition efforts must be made to obtain complete service medical records. A review of the evidence shows that the RO has made several attempts to obtain additional service medical records, including a request sent to Fort McPherson, Georgia. VA has an obligation under 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103(a), 7722 (West 1991) to advise the appellant of the evidence necessary to complete her application for benefits. In this case, the veteran is hereby notified that preliminary review indicates that the "evidence necessary to complete the application" is medical evidence of the existence of a current back disability and/or competent evidence that any current back disorder is related to service. Thus, even though the veteran's claim does not appear to be well grounded at this juncture inasmuch as there is no evidence of a present back disability, once the development below is completed, the record must again be reviewed to determine whether the claim is ultimately well grounded. Under the present circumstances, the Board finds that additional development of the evidence is necessary. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The veteran should identify the names and addresses of any medical care providers who have treated her for low back pain since separation from active duty. The veteran has indicated that she has received physical therapy for her back from Mr. Donald Colista. After obtaining any needed authorization from the veteran, the RO should obtain copies of all pertinent records identified by the veteran, including records from Mr. Colista. 2. The RO should request the NPRC to conduct another search for service medical records concerning the veteran. 3. When the above requested development has been completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO to determine whether the claim for service connection for residuals of low back strain is well-grounded. If the claim is determined to be well grounded, the veteran should be accorded an examination to determine the nature and extent of any current back disorder and for a medical opinion as to whether or not any current back disorder is related to the inservice low back strain. If the decision remains adverse to the veteran in any way, she and her representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case which summarizes the pertinent evidence, fully cites applicable legal provisions, and reflects detailed reasons and bases for the decision. They should then be afforded the applicable time period to respond. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The veteran need take no action until she is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information and to ensure due process of law. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim as a result of this action. GARY L. GICK 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 deter- mination. 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 action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).