Citation Nr: 1328336 Decision Date: 09/05/13 Archive Date: 09/16/13 DOCKET NO. 10-47 763 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston- Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus (DM), to include as due to exposure to herbicides. 2. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, to include as due to DM and/or exposure to herbicides. 3. Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as due to DM and/or exposure to herbicides. 4. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as due to DM and/or exposure to herbicides. 5. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as due to DM and/or exposure to herbicides. 6. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as due to DM and/or exposure to herbicides. 7. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, to include as due to DM. 8. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 9. Entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD David S. Nelson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1968 to March 1972. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) from a July 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. In September 2011 the Veteran testified during a hearing at the RO before the undersigned Acting Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record. Evidence pertinent to the matters on appeal was received contemporaneously with the Veteran's September 2011 Board hearing. The Veteran has waived initial RO consideration of this evidence. 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 A review of the claims file reveals that additional development is necessary in this case. The Veteran seeks service connection for the disabilities on appeal primarily on the basis of exposure to herbicides during claimed service in Vietnam. The Board notes, however, that at his August 2011 Board hearing the Veteran claimed that he had been diagnosed with diabetes approximately a year following service, essentially confirming that the Veteran also seeks serve connection for diabetes on a direct basis. In this regard, the Board observes that at his August 2011 Board hearing the Veteran indicated that he is in receipt of disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Board notes that VA is obligated to acquire such records when relevant. While the Veteran did not specify the disabilities upon which the SSA award was based, the potential relevance of the records from the SSA cannot be ignored. On remand, these records must be requested and placed in the file. Any negative response should also be documented in the file. While acknowledging that the Veteran has submitted correspondence and his unit's history from the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center, after a careful review of the evidence currently associated with the claims file, the Board has been unable to confirm the Veteran's assertion that he had active service in Vietnam. The two years and 28 days of Foreign or Sea Service reflected on his DD 214 corresponds to the Veteran's service aboard the USS WASP, as indicated by his available personnel records. The Board also notes that at his August 2011 hearing the Veteran indicated that he had possession of awards, decorations, or other such documentation reflecting his service in Vietnam. At the hearing the Veteran was encouraged to submit evidence in support of his claims. The Veteran is again encouraged to submit evidence adequate for VA compensation purposes demonstrating his service in the Republic of Vietnam or to petition the service department to correct his service record. See Duro v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 530, 532 (1992) (holding that the findings by the service department verifying a person's service are binding on VA for purposes of establishing service in the U.S. Armed Forces). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Appropriate efforts should be taken to obtain a complete copy of the Veteran's SSA disability records. Any negative response should be documented in the file. 2. Thereafter, readjudicate the issues currently on appeal. If any of the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for appellate review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ T. L. DOUGLAS 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).