ÿþCitation Nr: 18112610

Decision Date: 06/20/18	Archive Date: 06/19/18



DOCKET NO. 11-16 654

DATE:	June 20, 2018

REMANDED

Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent disabling for tension headaches is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty for training from September 1999 to March 2000, with additional service in the Wisconsin National Guard. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans  Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). During the course of the appeal, in April 2013, the Veteran s rating for her tension headaches was increased to 30 percent disabling, effective July 28, 2009. See April 2013 rating decision.

In March 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of that hearing is of record.

The issue of entitlement to service connection for a lower back disability has been raised by the record in May 2018 email correspondence, but has not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over it, and it is referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(b).

1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation in excess of 30 percent disabling for tension headaches is remanded.

During her March 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran stated that she was seen at a VA treatment facility for her tension headaches merely two weeks prior to the hearing. See March 2018 Board hearing. In July 2015, she also submitted records indicating she was receiving VA treatment at that time. See July 2015 correspondence. There are hardly any VA treatment records in the claim file and the records available appear to be incomplete. Therefore, remand to retrieve VA treatment records is necessary.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain the Veteran s VA treatment records for the period from July 2009 to the present.

2. If upon completion of the above action the issue remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures.

 

E. I. VELEZ

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans  Appeals

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Sandler, Associate Counsel




{'dataset': 'bva_opinions'}