09-46 327, 09-46 327

Veteran served on active duty Aug 1989–May 1993 and appealed VA RO decisions denying/limiting benefits arising from service-connected left ankle sprain and penile condyloma, and claiming service connection for back and left leg disabilities (including as secondary to ankle).
Board issued a December 2011 decision denying service connection for back and left leg conditions and denying increased ratings for left ankle and penile condyloma; the Veteran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).
In March 2013 the Court affirmed the Board’s denial of service connection for back and left leg disabilities but vacated and remanded the increased-rating claims for the ankle and penile condyloma.
The Board remanded the increased-rating claims in April 2014 to obtain outstanding VA and private treatment records and to issue a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC); the RO’s subsequent development was incomplete and no SSOC was issued.
Because the Court already affirmed the Board’s denial of service connection for back and left leg conditions, the Board found no remaining error alleged and dismissed those two claims as moot/for lack of jurisdiction.
The Board remanded the increased-rating claims again for proper development: obtain outstanding VA records, request the Veteran identify non-VA providers (including treatment while a student at San Diego State University), associate records, then issue an SSOC and return the case to the Board.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to service connection for back disability (including secondary to ankle)	Veteran contended back condition is service-connected/secondary	VA/Board argued prior Board decision was correct and Court affirmed it	Dismissed as moot; Board lacks jurisdiction to relitigate after Court affirmation
Entitlement to service connection for left leg disability (including secondary to ankle)	Veteran contended left leg condition is service-connected/secondary	VA/Board asserted prior Board decision was correct and Court affirmed it	Dismissed as moot; Board lacks jurisdiction to relitigate after Court affirmation
Increased rating for service‑connected left ankle sprain residuals	Veteran seeks higher rating based on severity/records evidence	VA needs additional development and records to determine proper rating	Remanded for development: obtain VA/non‑VA records, solicit veteran ID of providers, issue SSOC after development
Compensable rating for penile condyloma	Veteran seeks compensable evaluation	VA needs additional development and records to determine proper rating	Remanded for same development steps as ankle claim and issuance of SSOC

Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (remand orders by the Board must be complied with; VA must substantially comply with remand directives)
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999) (veteran may submit additional evidence and argument during remand development)