Citation Nr: 1005286 Decision Date: 02/04/10 Archive Date: 02/25/10 DOCKET NO. 05-25 732 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Salt Lake City, Utah THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Emily Tamlyn, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served in the National Guard from October 1955 to October 1961 and then from April 1980 to April 1996 with several periods of active duty/active duty for training (ACDUTRA). The exact dates for active duty/ACDUTRA from April 26, 1991 are documented on the National Guard Retirement Points Statements. The number of days on active duty for training/ACDUTRA are located on the National Guard Retirement Points History statement which details from October 1955 to April 1995. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2005 rating action of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO) in San Diego California. In that decision, the RO denied service connection for diabetes mellitus. In March 2006, the Veteran testified before the undersigned at a Board hearing. A copy of the transcript is associated with the file. In August 2007, this claim was remanded for further development. 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 contends in a May 2005 statement: "I am claiming a disability for being a diabetic while serving in the National Guard." On an October 2009 response form, the Veteran stated he came down with diabetes mellitus during Desert Storm, which was a very stressful time for him. At the March 2006 Board hearing, the Veteran emphasized that he felt it was the stress of having to help others and their families prepare for active duty that made him stressed about not knowing when he was going to be activated. (Transcript, p 2-4.) The Veteran explained he was never activated; the war ended before his unit was called up. (Transcript, p 4.) A September 1992 report of medical history examination form shows a glucose level of 134. In October 1992, a medical screening summary, fasting blood sugar was also 134. A December 17, 1994 lab report and medical examination records (which is dated the same day as when the Veteran was on INACDUTRA) show his glucose was 215. A January 1995 medical screening summary shows fasting blood sugar was 215 and flagged as cardiovascular risk factor. A May 1995 letter from Dr. Grua states that information was reviewed from the National Guard "raising the possibility of diabetes." Dr. Grua went on to state that the Veteran had diabetes mellitus based on testing. Another record shows that a medical duty review board convened in July 1995 and found the Veteran had diabetes and hypertension controlled by medication. The Veteran received a P3 profile. In June 2008, a letter was submitted from Dr. Brady. The letter states that the Veteran acquired diabetes while serving in Utah National Guard and asserts it was specifically due to his involvement counseling family members of soldiers. "Stress elevates blood sugars and could possibly tip someone into diabetes. The stress [the Veteran] experienced could have contributed to him developing diabetes at the time." Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110, 1131 (West 2002). The phrase "active military, naval, or air service" from 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 and § 1131 includes any period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty. 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(24)(B) (West 2002 & Supp. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a) (2009). The Veteran may only become service-connected for diabetes if it is related to active duty or ACDUTRA service. Records show the Veteran was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus in May 1995; he was on ACDUTRA on different dates for less than one month after his diagnosis. On remand, the Veteran should receive a VA examination to determine if his diabetes is related to his ACDUTRA service. Also, records should be requested from Dr. Brady. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, request records from Dr. Brady. A negative reply is requested. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a pertinent VA examination. The Veteran's entire claims file and a copy of this remand should be made available to the examiner for review. The examiner should review the claims file in conjunction with offering an opinion, to specifically include: * The September 1992 report of medical history examination form showing a glucose level of 134; * the December 17, 1994 lab report and medical history examination showing his glucose of 215; * a January 1995 medical screening summary showing fasting blood sugar of 215; * the May 1995 letter from Dr. Grua; * a record showing that a medical duty review board convened in July 1995 and found the Veteran had diabetes controlled by medication; * and the June 2008 letter from Dr. Brady. The examiner should indicate whether it is likely, unlikely, or at least as likely as not that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus had its onset or underwent a measurable increase in severity during a period of ACDUTRA (exact dates are noted on the National Guard Retirement Points Statements) or is otherwise related to his service. 3. Then, after ensuring any other necessary development has been complete, re-adjudicate the Veteran's claim. If any action remains adverse to the Veteran, provide him and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case and allow an opportunity to respond. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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. 2009). _________________________________________________ THOMAS J. DANNAHER 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) (2009).