Citation Nr: 18139998 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-00 132 DATE: October 2, 2018 REMANDED Service connection for a respiratory disorder, including as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. Service connection for a back disorder is remanded. Service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to the service-connected diabetes mellitus, including as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran, who is the appellant, had active service from December 1965 to September 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2012 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia. In July 2016, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. During the July 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran also presented testimony with respect to the issue of entitlement to wavier of recovery for an overpayment. This issue has been decided in a separate Board decision under docket number 13-21 959A. 1.Service Connection for a Respiratory Disorder The Veteran contends that a respiratory disorder is due to service, to include herbicide exposure. At the July 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that asthma was due to in-service herbicide exposure. As to the claimed respiratory disorder, various VA and private treatment records show a diagnosis of and treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, asthma and COPD, by regulation, are not diseases for which service connection may be presumed as being the result of herbicide exposure. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). An opinion, however, as to whether a respiratory disorder is etiologically related to in-service herbicide exposure is warranted. The September 1967 service separation report reflects that the service examiner did not discern any disorder related to the respiratory system. The September 1967 service separation report also reflects that the chest and lungs were each clinically evaluated as normal. In addition, the September 1967 report of medical history, completed by the Veteran, reflects the Veteran specifically denied asthma, shortness of breath, pain or pressure in chest, and chronic cough. As such, a VA examination would assist in determining the nature and etiology of any currently diagnosed respiratory disorder, and an opinion as to whether a respiratory disorder is etiologically related to in-service herbicide exposure, is warranted. 2. Service Connection for a Back Disorder At the July 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran contended that a back disorder was due to in-service duties as a cannoneer, which required heavy lifting. Numerous VA and private treatment records reflect treatment for back pain. The Board finds that a VA examination would assist in determining the nature and etiology of any currently diagnosed back disorder and to offer an opinion as to whether such diagnosis is related to service. 3. Service Connection for Hypertension Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for disability which is proximately due to, or the result of, a service connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis essentially requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(c). The Veteran contends generally that hypertension is due to in-service herbicide exposure and or secondary to the service-connected diabetes mellitus. The January 2012 claim reflects the Veteran wrote that hypertension began in 1968. Numerous VA and private treatment records reflect treatment for hypertension. To date, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination as to hypertension. As such, the Board finds that a VA examination would assist in determining the nature and etiology of any currently diagnosed hypertension, and to offer an opinion as to whether such diagnosis is related to service, including as due to herbicide exposure, and or secondary to the service-connected diabetes mellitus. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the record all VA treatment records pertaining to the treatment of the claimed back, respiratory, and hypertension disorders, not already of record. 2. Schedule an appropriate VA examination(s) to assist in determining the nature and etiology of the claimed back, respiratory, and hypertension disorders. The relevant documents in the record should be made available to the examiner. The examiner should obtain a full and accurate history from the record and from the Veteran, and all indicated studies should be performed. A rationale for all opinions and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved should be provided. The examiner should provide the following opinions: A) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that each currently diagnosed respiratory disorder was caused by in-service herbicide exposure? Please discuss the likely etiology of the respiratory disorder. In rendering the opinions requested, the VA examiner should assume, as fact, that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides during service. B) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that hypertension was caused by in-service herbicide exposure? Please discuss the likely etiology of hypertension. C) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the diagnosed hypertension was caused by the service-connected diabetes mellitus? D) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the diagnosed hypertension was aggravated by (worsened beyond natural progression) the service-connected diabetes mellitus? E) For each diagnosis identified, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that each currently diagnosed back disorder was incurred in or caused by active service, to specifically include in-service heavy lifting? 3. Then, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and representative should be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case. J. PARKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Tenney, Associate Counsel