Citation Nr: 1305308 Decision Date: 02/13/13 Archive Date: 02/21/13 DOCKET NO. 10-36 754 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Marine Corps League ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Hudson, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1964 to January 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2009 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The issues of possible service connection as due to herbicide exposure for a nervous system disorder (Guillain Barre Syndrome) and a liver disorder (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) have been raised by the record, but have not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over them and they are REFERRED to the AOJ for appropriate action. 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 While further delay is regrettable, the Board observes that further development is required prior to adjudicating the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II. The Veteran asserts that he developed diabetes mellitus type II as a result of exposure to herbicides in Vietnam during supply transactions in 1965 via liberty launch, in-country, to a Navy Depot while stationed aboard the U.S.S. Independence as a store clerk. In a statement dated in April 2011, the Veteran reported that this occurred in or around September 1965. The Veteran's DD 214 reflects that he was awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Vietnam). The Veteran's service personnel records are unavailable for review. The Board notes that this matter was previously remanded in March 2011 for further development. The Veteran's representative has argued that a review of the record reveals that the directives set forth in the Board's previous remand were not completely followed. Specifically, the Board stated that in addition to contacting the U. S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), the RO/AMC should contact the Naval Historical Center Ships History Branch and the National Archives and Records Administration to ascertain whether any records documented the Veteran's claims about going ashore in Vietnam in 1965. While the JSRRC was contacted and their findings were contained in a July 2012 memorandum (which reportedly included a review by JSRRC of deck logs), both the Naval Historical Center Ships History Branch and the National Archives and Records Administration were not contacted. Since it does not appear that the requested evidentiary development was fully completed, this matter must be remanded for additional development. The Veteran is entitled to compliance with the remand instructions and the Board is required to ensure compliance. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270-71 (1998). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO/AMC must contact the Naval Historical Center Ships History Branch, the National Archives and Records Administration, and/or any other source deemed appropriate to verify the locations and assignments of the U.S.S. Independence including whether the ship sent the Veteran ashore in Vietnam or sent the Veteran in a smaller watercraft into inland waterways in Vietnam. Record of the attempts to obtain this information, and any negative response that is received, must be included in the claims folder. The RO/AMC should request ship logs from the U.S.S. Independence for September 1965 and undertake additional development if needed, as outlined in M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section C, paragraph 10(k-m). 2. If any of the evidence obtained in combination with the current evidence indicates that further examination, medical opinion, or development is warranted, such should be arranged. 3. After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, the record should again be reviewed. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, then the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and be given the opportunity to respond thereto. 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 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL MARTIN 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) (2012).