Citation Nr: 18143254 Decision Date: 10/18/18 Archive Date: 10/18/18 DOCKET NO. 16-09 545 DATE: October 18, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy of the left upper extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus is denied. Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy of the left lower extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as due to exposure to herbicides is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity. 2. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1137, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 2. 3. The criteria for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1137, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1963 to November 1965. Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy of the left upper and left lower extremities, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus. The Veteran is seeking service connection for neuropathy of the left upper and lower extremities, that he states is due to or aggravated by diabetes mellitus. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a link between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013). Service connection is granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnoses of neuropathy of the upper and/ or lower extremities. Additionally, the Veteran’s post-service VA treatment records do not contain diagnoses of the claimed disorders. There is no medical evidence, or even lay statements provided by the Veteran throughout the course of the appeal, to indicate that he has a current diagnosis of neuropathy of the left upper and lower extremities. The Board must deny service connection because there is no evidence the Veteran currently has peripheral neuropathy of the left upper and lower extremities. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1995) (Congress specifically limited entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents had resulted in a disability); see also McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claims of entitlement to service connection for these disorders, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). As such, the claims must be denied. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as due to exposure to herbicides is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for diabetes mellitus that he states is due to his military service and, specifically, to exposure to herbicides while stationed in Panama. The Board notes that the Veteran has submitted private treatment records that purport to show elevated glucose readings and additional laboratory findings. However, it is unclear from these treatment records whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Further, diabetes mellitus is listed as a disease associated with herbicide agent exposure. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e). However, even if a Veteran is found not to be entitled to a regulatory presumption of service connection for a given disability, his claim must be reviewed to determine whether service connection can be established on another basis. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043-1044 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As such, a VA examination is required to confirm a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and, if so, whether it may be attributed to the Veteran’s military service. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d); McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). Finally, the Veteran’s service personnel records are not currently associated with the claims file, nor is there a formal finding of unavailability of these records. On remand, the RO should take all appropriate actions to obtain and associate those records. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s service personnel records and conduct any development necessary in light of these additional records. If the records are not available, this must be clearly documented in the record. 2. Obtain any additional VA and private treatment records relevant to the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes. 3. Then, after the above development is completed, schedule an appropriate examination and opinion from a suitably qualified examiner. The examiner is asked to first determine whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. If so, then the examiner must provide an opinion on whether it is as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus is otherwise attributable to his active service. The examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. 4. Confirm that the VA examination report and all medical opinions provided comport with this remand and undertake any additional development warranted. 5. Then, readjudicate the remaining claim on appeal. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Berry, Counsel