Citation Nr: 1322972 Decision Date: 07/18/13 Archive Date: 07/24/13 DOCKET NO. 10-05 952 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD David S. Nelson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1971 to June 1975. He died in May 2008. The appellant is his widow. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from a January 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. This case was previously before the Board in November 2011 and was remanded for additional development. In February 2011, the appellant testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned. A copy of the hearing transcript of that hearing is of record. 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 appellant asserts that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus, which was a significant condition that contributed to his death, was causally-related to in-service exposure to herbicides which he incurred while serving in the Republic of Vietnam. In addition, the Board's November 2011 remand also observed that given the evidence that the Veteran served in Thailand during the Vietnam era, the Board concluded that further development was necessary concerning whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in Thailand, regardless of whether he served in the Republic of Vietnam. The Veteran's personnel records reveal that he served with Task Force Delta at Nam Phong, Thailand, from August 1972 to July 1973 as an airfield systems technician. As noted in the November 2011 Board remand, VBA Fast Letter 09-20 and M21-1MR IV.ii.2.C.10.q. provide updated information concerning herbicide use in Thailand during the Vietnam era. Previous development procedures that VBA was using for purposes of developing information concerning possible Agent Orange exposure in Thailand were replaced by a Memorandum for the Record that was jointly prepared by the Compensation and Pension Service and the Department of Defense. If a claimed herbicide exposure cannot be resolved based on the information contained in the Memorandum, then follow-up inquiries must be sent to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) before the claim can be properly adjudicated. Id. While the Veteran's claims file does contain a copy of the aforementioned Memorandum of Record, the Board finds that the Memorandum itself does not resolve the issue of the Veteran's specific circumstances concerning herbicide exposure while serving in Thailand. As it appears that a request to JSRRC has not been made, a follow-up inquiry must be sent to the JSRRC prior to adjudication. The Board also observes that the requested development concerning the Veteran's unverified service in Vietnam has been completed and no additional action concerning that matter is needed. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO/AMC must take all steps necessary to determine whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicides during his service in Thailand in accordance with M21-1MR IV.ii.2.C.10.q and other pertinent directives. In particular, an inquiry must be sent directly to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for verification of the Veteran's exposure to herbicides while serving with Task Force Delta at Nam Phong, Thailand, from August 1972 to July 1973 as an airfield systems technician. All actions should be memorialized in the Veteran's VA claims file. 2. The AOJ should then, based on all the evidence of record, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued, and the appellant and her representative should be afforded the appropriate period to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, as appropriate. 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). _________________________________________________ CAROLE R. KAMMEL 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).