Citation Nr: 1306582 Decision Date: 02/26/13 Archive Date: 03/01/13 DOCKET NO. 07-05 092 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Huntington, West Virginia THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a colon disability, to include as a result of exposure to radiation and/or herbicides. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Nathaniel J. Doan, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service in the United States Air Force from September 1959 to January 1967. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2006 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Huntington, West Virginia. The Veteran testified before a Decision Review Officer (DRO) in December 2007. In June 2009, he testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned at the Huntington RO. Transcripts of both hearings are of record. Although the Veteran's initial claim for service connection was limited to colon cancer, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that when a claimant makes a claim, he is seeking service connection for symptoms regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Review of the claim file reveals that the Veteran has been treated for multiple colon disabilities. Thus, the Board has recharacterized the issue more broadly as a claim for entitlement to service connection for a colon disability. In August 2009, the Board remanded the claim for further development. Unfortunately, current review of the claims file reveals that additional development is required to ensure that VA has satisfied its duty to assist the Veteran in his appeal. Thus, the appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran asserts that he served in Thailand during the summer of 1966 and was stationed at Ubon, Udorn and Nakhon Phanom (NKP) Air Force bases, where he was exposed to herbicides therein. See the May 2005 Statement in Support of Claim; see also December 2007 DRO hearing transcript, at page 3. Available service personnel records (SPRs) reflect service in Southeast Asia between June and July 1966, but do not specifically indicate whether this service was in Thailand. To date, no action has been taken to determine whether the Veteran served in Thailand during his period of active duty. Such should be accomplished on remand. In the event that Thailand service is established, VA procedures for verifying exposure to herbicides in Thailand should then be followed. See M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, 2.C.10.q. Finally, if herbicide exposure is conceded, a medical opinion should be sought addressing whether the Veteran's current colon disability is a result of such exposure. The Board sincerely regrets the additional delay caused by this Remand. However, this action is necessary to ensure that all due process is met. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), or any other appropriate service department offices, to verify whether the Veteran served in Thailand during active service, to include during the identified period of service in Southeast Asia between June and July 1966. If more details are required to conduct such search, the Veteran should be asked to provide the necessary information. The results of such request, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be documented in the claims file, and the Veteran informed of any negative results. 2. If and only if service in Thailand is established, undertake any necessary action pursuant to M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, 2.C.10.q to verify whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicides during his service in Thailand. The results of such request, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be documented in the claims file, and the Veteran informed of any negative results. 3. If and only if it is determined that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides during service in Thailand, forward the claims folder to a qualified examiner for the purpose of providing a medical opinion. The examiner should be requested to review the claims folder and address the following: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any currently diagnosed colon disability is attributable to service, to include conceded herbicide exposure therein? No examination of the Veteran is necessary, unless the examiner determines otherwise. The rationale for any opinions, with citation to relevant medical findings, must be provided. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion(s) without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and explain why an opinion cannot be made without speculating. 4. Thereafter, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow the appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. The Veteran 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. 2010). _________________________________________________ Sonnet Gorham Acting 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).