Citation Nr: 1003045 Decision Date: 01/21/10 Archive Date: 02/01/10 DOCKET NO. 07-11 966 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Whitehead, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from April 1995 to March 1999. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2006 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia, which denied service connection for the above-referenced claim. In October 2009, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a Travel Board hearing, which was held at the RO. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. 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 Unfortunately, a remand is required in this case. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. VA has a duty to assist claimants in obtaining evidence needed to substantiate a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5107(a) 5103A (West 2002 & Supp. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2009). The Veteran essentially claims that he has diabetes mellitus that is related to his period of active service. The Veteran's service treatment records show that he was treated for urinary condition. Service treatment records dated throughout 1998 show that he was diagnosed with hematuria. An August 1998 Report of Medical Board shows that he was noted to have frequency of urination. An August 1998 laboratory report shows that an urinalysis was negative for malignancy. A December 1998 separation physical report also documents his report of hematuria and urinary frequency; he was noted to have a diagnosis of microscopic hematuria with no radiological source. The medical evidence reveals that the Veteran was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus in 2001. The record reflects that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to assess the nature and etiology of his diabetes mellitus. The Board notes that assistance by VA includes providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on a claim. When medical evidence is inadequate, VA must supplement the record by seeking an advisory opinion or ordering another medical examination. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 213 (1992). Given the medical evidence showing in-service diagnosis of hematuria and the Veteran's current diabetes mellitus diagnosis, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded an appropriate VA examination to assess the nature and etiology of his diabetes mellitus to determine whether his condition is related to his military service. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO/AMC shall schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to assess the nature and etiology of the diabetes mellitus. The entire claims file and a copy of this Remand must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with conducting the examination. All necessary tests and studies should be performed, and all findings must be reported in detail. The examiner should render an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater likelihood) that any diabetes mellitus diagnosis is related to the Veteran's period of military service. In doing so, the examiner should acknowledge the documented in-service diagnosis of hematuria and reports of urinary frequency. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided in a legible report. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resort to mere speculation, he or she should so indicate and explain why an opinion cannot be reached. 2. The RO/AMC will then readjudicate the Veteran's claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be provided with a Supplemental Statement of the Case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. 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. 2009). _________________________________________________ JONATHAN B. KRAMER 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).