Citation Nr: 1043836 Decision Date: 11/22/10 Archive Date: 12/01/10 DOCKET NO. 09-16 894 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Craig M. Kabatchnick, Attorney- at-Law WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Layton, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1966 to August 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2006 rating decision of the Winston- Salem, North Carolina, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In February 2010, the Veteran testified during a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at the RO; a transcript of that hearing is of record. In February 2010, the Veteran's representative submitted additional evidence directly to the Board, with a waiver of initial RO consideration of the evidence. This evidence is accepted for inclusion in the record on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.800, 20.1304 (2010). 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 Board's review of the claims file reveals that further RO action on the claim on appeal is warranted. The Veteran claims that service connection for diabetes mellitus should be granted on a presumptive basis. He asserts that he was exposed to herbicides while serving at two separate locations while on active duty. First, the Veteran has asserted exposure to herbicides while serving at Fort Clayton, Panama Canal Zone. Service personnel records show that from March 8, 1968, to March 25, 1968, the Veteran was "Enroute to Ft Clayton, Canal Zone." Second, the Veteran has asserted exposure to herbicides while serving in Korea. Service personnel records show that from July 21, 1968 to September 12, 1968, the Veteran was a Weapons Support Radar Repairman assigned to Headquarters Company A, 702d Maintenance Battalion, USARPAC. From September 12, 1968 to March 5, 1969, the Veteran was a Radar Repair Assistant assigned to Headquarters Company A, 702d Maintenance Battalion, USARPAC. From March 5, 1969 to August 16, 1969, the Veteran was a Radar Repairman assigned to Company B, 702d Maintenance Battalion, USARPAC. In particular, the Veteran states that he spent time at Blue Lancer Valley, Korea. He has submitted a February 2007 buddy statement from F.L.S. which indicates that he served with the Veteran between December/November 1968 and August 1969 at Blue Lancer Valley, Korea. F.L.S. indicated that they were attached to the Second Infantry Division. A service treatment record from July 1969 shows that the Veteran was at the Blue Lancer Valley Infirmary. The Board observes that the VA Adjudication Procedure Manual and Manual Rewrite (M21-1 MR) provides for verification of exposure to herbicides in locations other than in the Republic of Vietnam. The M21-1 MR, pt. IV, subpt. II, Ch.2 sec. C, para. 10(o) concerns verification of exposure to herbicides in areas other than in the Republic of Vietnam. Concerning the Veteran's claimed exposure to herbicides in the Panama Canal Zone, he has provided the approximate dates (from March 8, 1968, to March 25, 1968) and location (Fort Clayton, Canal Zone). Thus, the other steps outlined in the M21-1 MR, pt. IV, subpt. II, Ch.2 sec. C, para. 10(o) must be completed to confirm his claimed herbicide exposure while serving in the Panama Canal Zone. The M21-1 MR, pt. IV, subpt. II, Ch.2 sec. C, para. 10(p) concerns verification of exposure to herbicides along the DMZ in Korea. In addition to listing a table of units for which exposure to herbicides is conceded, a note to the paragraph includes instructions concerning how to verify the location of a Veteran's unit when the Veteran alleges service along the DMZ between April 1968 and July 1969, and was assigned to a unit other than one listed in the table. The Veteran's service records do not indicate that the Veteran was assigned to a unit for which exposure to herbicides along the DMZ in Korea can be conceded. However, the record contains no indication that the RO followed the instructions given in the note following M21-1 MR, pt. IV, subpt. II, Ch.2 sec. C, para. 10(p) to verify the location of the Veteran's unit while he served in Korea. Thus, remand is in order to complete the development outlined in the note to M21-1 MR, pt. IV, subpt. II, Ch.2 sec. C, para. 10(p). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should complete the steps outlined in the M21-1 MR, pt. IV, subpt. II, Ch.2 sec. C, para;. 10(o) concerning verification of exposure to herbicides while serving from March 8, 1968, to March 25, 1968 at Fort Clayton, Canal Zone. Any additional action necessary for independent verification of exposure to herbicides, to include follow-up action requested by any contacted entity, should be accomplished. If the search for corroborating records leads to negative results, the RO should notify the Veteran's representative and afford him the opportunity to respond. 2. The RO should complete the steps outlined in the M21-1 MR, pt. IV, subpt. II, Ch.2 sec. C, para;. 10(p) (to specifically include the note) concerning verification of exposure to herbicides along the DMZ in Korea. Any additional action necessary for independent verification of exposure to herbicides, to include follow-up action requested by any contacted entity, should be accomplished. If the search for corroborating records leads to negative results, the RO should notify the Veteran's representative and afford him the opportunity to respond. 3. To help avoid future remand, the RO must ensure that all requested actions have been accomplished (to the extent possible) in compliance with this REMAND. If any action is not undertaken, or is taken in a deficient manner, appropriate corrective action should be undertaken. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 4. After completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, the RO should readjudicate the claim on appeal in light of all pertinent evidence and legal authority. 5. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the RO must furnish to the Veteran and his attorney an appropriate supplemental SOC that includes clear reasons and bases for all determinations, and afford them the appropriate time period for response before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. 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). _________________________________________________ WAYNE M. BRAEUER 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).