Citation Nr: 0811654 Decision Date: 04/09/08 Archive Date: 04/23/08 DOCKET NO. 04-42 138 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, including as due to asbestos exposure. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Lindio, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service with the Army from August 1979 until August 1982 and subsequent Army Reserve National Guard service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2004 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee. 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 The veteran essentially contends that he has degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine and a respiratory disorder, including as due to asbestos exposure, due to service. The veteran claimed in his March 2004 claim application that he was exposed to asbestos while cleaning the ceiling of a naval base and that he has breathing problems. Additional information was requested from the veteran regarding his asbestos claim in a March 2004 VCAA letter; however, no information was provided. Other than a June 1982 record for bronchitis, service medical records did not indicate complaints of or treatment for a respiratory disorder. The veteran's VA outpatient treatment records have indicated that he has been treated for shortness of breath, such as in an October 2003 record. VA records, such as a February 11, 2004, record, have also alternatively indicated that the veteran has been found to have no shortness of breath, wheezing, hemoptysis, asthma, or tuberculosis. A February 19, 2004, record found the veteran to have allergic sinusitis. In respect to both of his claims, the veteran has indicated, in his June 2004 Notice of Disagreement that he was receiving medical treatment for his back and had pulmonary function testing done at the VA in Memphis, Tennessee. He also submitted evidence of the occurrence of pulmonary function testing with his September 2004 VA Form 21-4138, which indicated he was tested in June 2004. The veteran's medical findings of that test and other VA medical records dated since March 2004 have not been associated with the claims file. Given the nature of his present claims, the VA medical records are relevant and should be obtained. The Board also concludes that on remand the veteran must be afforded an examination to allow for a complete review of the veteran's lumbar spine and respiratory claims to determine whether he has either condition that may be related to his military service. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO/AMC should contact the Memphis VA medical center and request all medical records, specifically including any records concerning the veteran's lumbar spine and any respiratory disorder present, and particularly, those dated since March 2004. 2. After the requested medical records have been associated with the claims file, the RO should arrange for the veteran to undergo an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature, extent, onset, and etiology of any lumbar spine and respiratory disorder found to be present. The claims folder should be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. All indicated studies should be performed, and all findings should be reported in detail. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any lumbar spine or respiratory disorder found to be present had its onset in or is related to service. In discussing his/her opinions, the examiner should acknowledge the veteran's lay statements of record relating to the onset of the veteran's disorder. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided in a legible report. 3. 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 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 appellant 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 of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 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). ______________________________________________ STEVEN D. REISS Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals