Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded.

Citation Nr: 26001455 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 19-22 923 DATE: January 30, 2026 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a thoracic spine disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Army from July 2003 to July 2005. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). This matter was previously before the Board in April 2024 when entitlement to service connection for the Veteran's spine conditions was denied. The Appellant appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans (Court). In September 2025, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) to vacate and remand the April 2024 Board decision. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a thoracic spine disability. Pursuant to the JMR, the Board notes that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his spine conditions. VA must provide a medical examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103 (d)(2), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4)(i). The third prong, which requires that the evidence of record "indicate" that the claimed disability or symptoms "may be" associated with the established event, is a low threshold. McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. As such, remand is necessary to obtain medical opinions. The Veteran is reminded that VA's duty to assist is not always "a one-way street." Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). If a claimant wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining relevant evidence. Id. The Veteran is encouraged to comply with the requests for additional information to support his claim. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, obtain any VA and private treatment records identified by the Veteran that are not already of record or identified as missing. If any requested records cannot be obtained, inform the Veteran of the results of the requests for records. A negative response must be associated with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for the appropriate VA examinations with a clinician who has not previously examined the Veteran or provided an opinion in conjunction with these claims to obtain an etiology opinion of any cervical, lumbar, and thoracic spine disabilities. The examiner must review the claims file, to include this Board Remand, and should note that review in the report. The examiner must reconcile the opinion with all opinions of record. The examiner should provide the following: (a.) Opine whether it is as likely as not that any spine disability is etiologically related to active service or any event, disease, or injury during service; is related to parachute jumping activities; or was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service. The examiner should specifically address the parachute jump injury reported by the Veteran that occurred in May 2005. (b.) Opine whether it is at least as likely as not that any spine disability manifested as arthritis within one year after separation from active service. (c.) The examiner must consider and address the Veteran's lay statements regarding symptoms during and since service, to include the November 2021 hearing testimony, statements in support of claim dated December 2015 and February 2017, in addition to all buddy statements of record. The examiner cannot base the opinion solely on any lack of treatment or complaints in service. (d.) Any opinion expressed should be accompanied by a complete rationale with references to the record, diagnostic tests, and medical literature. 3. Readjudicate the claims. If the benefit sought is not granted, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. D. SMART Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Poston, M. The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.