Citation Nr: 0811209 Decision Date: 04/04/08 Archive Date: 04/14/08 DOCKET NO. 05-33 455 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, as a result of in-service exposure to herbicides. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Texas Veterans Commission WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran and Spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. L. Mollan, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1967 to October 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2004 RO decision, which denied a claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II and kidney stones associated with herbicide exposure. The Board notes that the veteran never submitted a claim for entitlement to service connection for kidney stones. While the RO initially adjudicated this issue in the November 2004 rating decision, it later noted in the August 2005 statement of the case (SOC) that it had erroneously addressed this issue because no claim for service connection for kidney stones was ever raised by the veteran. For this issue, and because the veteran has not since expressed a desire to appeal such a claim, this issue is clearly not before the Board and need not be adjudicated. In August 2007, a video hearing was held before the undersigned Acting Veterans Law Judge at the Houston, Texas RO. A transcript of that proceeding has been associated with the claims folder. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran if further action is required. REMAND The veteran contends that he has diabetes mellitus, type II as a result of in-service exposure to herbicides in Vietnam. See Claim, March 2004. After a thorough review of the veteran's claims folder, the Board has determined that additional development is necessary prior to the adjudication of this claim. Specifically, this issue must be remanded in order to verify the dates of any active duty that the veteran served in or near the coast of Vietnam. The veteran alleges that he served on the USS Molala ATF 106 during his active duty. See hearing transcript, August 2007. He contends that, while he was aboard the ship, it anchored near the coast of Vietnam. Id. He alleges that it was his duty to transport the captain back and forth from the ship to Vietnam on a smaller boat. Id. Throughout the course of this duty, he claims that he stepped foot onto Vietnam several times. See hearing transcript, August 2007 The Board notes that the veteran is entirely competent to report having gone ashore in Vietnam, and there is no affirmative evidence from the service department refuting his report. Furthermore, the record shows that the veteran was awarded a Vietnam Service Medical, which suggests that the USS Molala was in close proximity to Vietnam during the period on which he served aboard. However, the claims folder does not contain any further detail as to the ship's history, including the length of time that the ship was in close proximity to Vietnam, or the responsibilities and duties of the ship at that time. Thus, the Board finds that the RO should attempt to verify through the appropriate sources the location of the USS Molala ATF 106 for the period during which the veteran served aboard the ship, and, in particular, further detail as to the length of time that the ship was in close proximity of Vietnam, and the responsibilities and duties of the ship at that time. In addition, as it is necessary to remand the case for the above reason, the RO/AMC should also take this opportunity to locate any and all recent VA or private treatment records that have not previously been associated with the claims folder. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure that the veteran has been provided with appropriate notice of VA's duties to notify and to assist. 2. The RO should verify through the appropriate sources the location of the USS Molala ATF 106 for the period during which the veteran served on the ship, to include any periods in which it was located in close proximity of Vietnam. To the extent possible, the RO should also attempt to verify the precise location of the ship (off the coast versus inland waterways), and its duties and responsibilities at that time. 3. Then, the RO/AMC should readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought remains denied, he should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), which includes a summary of additional evidence submitted, any additional applicable laws and regulations, and the reasons for the decision. After the veteran and his representative have been given time to submit additional argument, the claim should be returned to the Board for further review. The veteran 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 or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL LANE Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board is appealable to the Court. 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).