Citation Nr: 0731622 Decision Date: 10/05/07 Archive Date: 10/16/07 DOCKET NO. 03-08 605A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for rhinitis and/or sinusitis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for sarcoidosis. 3. Entitlement to service connection for depression, to include as secondary to service-connected disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Georgia Department of Veterans Services WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Nadine W. Benjamin, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 974 to March 1977. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia. In December 2004, the Board remanded this claim to the RO for additional development. The case has been returned to the Board for further review. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND In December 2004, the Board remanded this claim to the RO for additional development. At that time the record included the veteran's service medical records (SMRs). The record indicates that the veteran's service medical records unfortunately have apparently been misplaced since that time, because the claims file does not currently contain the veteran's service medical records. The Board finds that an effort needs to be made to locate these records, which are necessary for review by the Board, because they are pertinent to this claim. The efforts made to find these records should be documented; if codes (e.g., location codes or action codes) are used in the documentation, a key or guide to the meaning of the codes used should be included in the claims folder. Further, if the SMRs are not located, the Board is "under a heightened duty to consider and discuss the evidence of record and supply well- reasoned bases for its decision as a consequence of the appellant's missing SMRs" and ensure that the Secretary fulfilled his heightened duty to assist, including searching for alternate records. Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 370-371 (2005); see Gobber v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 470, 472 (1992) (duty to assist heightened when putative records are in control of Government agency); Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 401(1991) (duty to assist is particularly great in light of the unavailability of service medical records). If it is necessary to reconstruct the lost records, attempts to obtain duplicate records which were in the veteran's original claims file should be made. For example, requests for other sources of information regarding the veteran's inservice medical treatment, if any, should be tapped, including morning reports, surgeon general reports, etc. Clues and references to additional documentation should be pursued as they turn up, and these sources should be pursued to the extent possible. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. All efforts should be made to locate the veteran's SMRs, including asking the veteran to submit copies of any SMRs in her possession. Associate all requests and records received with the claims file. If records are unavailable from any source, a negative reply should be requested. 2. If the service records are not located, the veteran should be so informed and given the opportunity to submit alternate records. The RO should reconstruct the evidence that was in the original claims file, following the guidance contained in the M21 Manual. 3. After the requested searches have been conducted to the extent possible, re-adjudicate this claim. If the benefits sought are not granted, the veteran and representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and given an opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2006). _________________________________________________ MARY GALLAGHER Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), 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) (2007).