Citation Nr: 0938234 Decision Date: 10/08/09 Archive Date: 10/22/09 DOCKET NO. 05-06 370A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for growths in the head and neck (parathyroid adenoma and acoustic neuroma removed from the left side of the head), polyps of the sinus cavity and anemia, to include as due to ionizing radiation. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD H.J. Baucom, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from June 1952 to November 1974. This matter come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) from a rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas, which denied the benefits sought on appeal. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2009). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). 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 A preliminary review of the record discloses a need for further development prior to further appellate review. In this regard, the Board is of the opinion that additional development of the Veteran's claim under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.311 is necessary. In this regard, the Veteran contends that he was exposed to radiation in service which caused his claimed conditions of polyps in sinuses, parathyroid adenoma, acoustic neuroma, and anemia. The Veteran contends that while he was stationed aboard the USS Princeton off the water of Amchitka Island, Alaska the ship experienced a shock wave from testing conducted at the Milrow station which exposed him to radiation. A Deck Log from the USS Princeton appears to support the Veteran's contention that the ship was in the vicinity of Amchitka Island at the time of a nuclear test in October 1969. However, the copy of the Deck Log, dated Thursday, 2 October 1969, is not complete because of poor copying, and therefore, for the reasons explained below, the Board is of the opinion that a better copy should be requested. The Veteran is not currently diagnosed with any of the presumptive diseases identified as diseases specific to radiation-exposed veterans under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1112(c)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(d)(2), and therefore his claims for service connection for polyps in sinuses, parathyroid adenoma, acoustic neuroma, and anemia as due to radiation exposure cannot be presumptively service-connected under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1112 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. However, as the Veteran is currently diagnosed with parathyroid adenoma, a radiogenic disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311, which he contends was caused by exposure to ionizing radiation, the Board will assess the Veteran's claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311. As indicated above, the Veteran contends that while he was stationed aboard the USS Princeton off the waters of Amchitka Island, Alaska the ship experienced a shock wave from testing conducted at the Milrow station which exposed him to radiation. By reference the Board notes that under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 a "radiation risk activity" includes service before January 1, 1974 on Amchitka Island, Alaska, if during such service, the Veteran was exposed to ionizing radiation in the performance of duty related to the Long Shot, Milrow, or Cannikin underground nuclear tests. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(d)(3)(ii)(D)(2). It does not appear that the Veteran was stationed on Amchitka Island during any testing, nor does he contend that he was on Amchitka Island. However, it is unclear from the Deck Log submitted why the USS Princeton was located where it was at that time, its proximity Amchitka Island, and what, if any role the USS Princeton or the Veteran may have played in any such testing, and more significantly, whether the USS Princeton and the Veteran may have been exposed to radiation. As the Veteran is currently diagnosed with a radiogenic disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311, and his potential ionizing radiation exposure is unclear, the Board is of the opinion that, under the facts and circumstance in this case, the Veteran's claim should be reviewed as an 'Other Exposure Claim' and his records should be forwarded to the Under Secretary for Health for preparation of a dose estimate, see 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(2)(iii), and any other development indicated under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b). Therefore, in order to give the Veteran every consideration with respect to the present appeal, it is the Board's opinion that further development of the case is necessary. This case is being returned to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, D.C., and the Veteran will be notified when further action on his part is required. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO/AMC should obtain and associate with the claims file a complete copy of the Deck Log from the USS Princeton from October 1 to 3, 1969. 2. After the development requested in the first paragraph has been completed, the RO/AMC should forward all relevant records to the Under Secretary for Health for the preparation of a dose estimate, to the extent feasible, based on the available methodologies. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(2)(iii). 3. After the development requested in the second paragraph has been complete, the RO/AMC should undertake any further development indicated under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311 (b). When the development requested has been completed, the case should again be reviewed by the RO on the basis of the additional evidence. If the benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case, and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional development, and the Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of the case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time. The Veteran is free to submit any additional evidence and/or argument he desires to have considered in connection with his current appeal. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). No action is required of the Veteran until he is notified. _________________________________________________ RAYMOND F. FERNER Acting 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) (2009).