Citation Nr: 0839942 Decision Date: 11/20/08 Archive Date: 11/25/08 DOCKET NO. 05-25 290 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for the veteran's cause of death. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michael Holincheck, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1966 to August 1970. The veteran died in December 2000. The appellant is the veteran's surviving spouse. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2002 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. 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 served on active duty from August 1966 to August 1970. He died in December 2000. His certificate of death lists the cause of death as lymphoma of the lung. Huntington's Chorea was listed as a significant condition that contributed to death but not resulting in the underlying cause (lymphoma of the lung). The appellant contends that the veteran's lymphoma of the lung is related to herbicide exposure in Vietnam. Based on the evidence currently of record, the veteran was not service-connected for any disability at the time of his death. At the outset the Board notes that there may be a missing claims folder for the veteran. Associated with the current claims folder is a copy of a "Contact Sheet" from the State of Alabama, Department of Veterans Affairs with an original date of November 23, 1970. The sheet identifies the veteran's dates of service and other pertinent information. It also reflects a "C" number for the veteran at that time. The veteran was noted to have submitted a claim for education benefits in addition to several other forms in 1970. It appears he was in receipt of education benefits for a period of time. It is not clear from the other entries if the veteran ever submitted a claim for service connected disability compensation. An attempt to locate the veteran's claims folder, if one exists, must be made to ensure no evidence is overlooked. The appellant submitted a great deal of evidence in support of her claim to include copies of the veteran's Air Force Form 7, Airman Military Record, copies of orders transferring him to a base in Japan, as well as copies of the veteran's service treatment records (STRs). The veteran's DD 214 is also of record. Neither the AF Form 7 or STRs provide evidence that the veteran served in Vietnam, even on a temporary basis. The veteran is shown to have overseas assignments in Pakistan and Japan as far as permanent units. The appellant submitted statements from two individuals that were assigned to the veteran's unit in 1968-1969. Both individuals stated that they recalled the veteran going on a temporary duty (TDY) assignment to Vietnam. They did not recall the exact date but felt it was either in December 1968 or the first quarter of 1969 (January to March). They both noted that the mission was to be a "NSA" (National Security Agency) mission and that civilian clothes would be worn. The Board notes that the veteran had a Top Secret security clearance. He also served in assignments that related to the handling of message traffic, to include an assignment as a classified courier clerk. His last assignment was as a traffic distribution clerk at the 6918th Security Squadron, Hakata Airfield, Japan. He served there from July 1968 to August 1970. Given the statements of the two individuals from the veteran's unit that both attest to his having gone on TDY to Vietnam, their contention that it did involve the NSA, and that the veteran's routine assignment involving classified message traffic, additional development is required. The facts, as related, certainly would place such a trip within the ordinary circumstances of the veteran's military specialty and assignment at the time. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(a) (West 2002). The veteran's complete enlisted personnel record should be requested. This would include his enlisted performance evaluations. They can be reviewed to determine if they report on a period of TDY during the approximate time frame provided. In addition, if the veteran did complete such TDY, he would have submitted a DD Form 1351-2, Travel Voucher or Subvoucher. The forms were used by military and government civilian employees to document their travel, and account for the days on travel, time at a temporary site, mode of travel, and reimbursable expenses. Nearly all temporary duty travel required the submission of such forms to account for the expenditure of funds associated with such duty. Unless the details of the veteran's TDY were classified, there should be a record of payment of his expenses. In addition, the appellant also contacted the Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA) by e-mail to inquire about records relating to the veteran's TDY in February 2001. A response from that agency said that the histories of the Air Force security squadrons was maintained by a special office in San Antonio, Texas. A contact number was provided. This agency must be contacted to determine if they would have any pertinent records that might document the veteran's TDY period. If so, the records must be requested if they are available to the public. Finally, the Board notes that the appellant submitted a VA Form 21.4142, Authorization and Consent to Release of Information to VA, for G. Perrine. To date, it does not appear that the RO has requested those records. Additional action in this regard is therefore required on remand. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should conduct a search for the veteran's original claims folder. The representative's contact sheet in the current claims folder should be reviewed for information relevant to the possible creation of an earlier claims folder for the veteran. If it is determined that no earlier claims folder exists, that fact must be documented by way of a memorandum in the current claims folder. 2. The RO should contact the appellant and request that she provide any additional records of the veteran's service she may have, especially those that would show travel. Even if the records may not reflect the destination or location of the travel, they may be of benefit if they are for the contended period of time. 3. The RO should obtain the veteran's complete military personnel records and records of travel to include his personnel evaluations and copies of any duty orders and payment vouchers. 4. The RO should contact the Air Force Intelligence History Office in San Antonio to inquire if they would maintain any records that might document the veteran's TDY period. 5. The RO should attempt to obtain medical records from G. Perrine, in accordance with a VA Form 21-4142 submitted by the appellant in August 2001, provided that the appellant provides an updated form, if one is necessary. 6. After undertaking any other development deemed appropriate, the RO should re-adjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted, the appellant and her representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and afforded an opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the appellant until she is notified by the RO. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded to the RO. 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. 2008). _________________________________________________ S. S. TOTH 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) (2008).