Citation Nr: 18143735 Decision Date: 10/22/18 Archive Date: 10/22/18 DOCKET NO. 13-22 029A DATE: October 22, 2018 REMANDED Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, with diabetic retinopathy and peripheral vascular disease, peripheral neuropathy of upper and lower extremities, and erectile dysfunction, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active military service from March 1967 to December 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2009 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared and testified at a Board video-conference hearing held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2016. A transcript of this hearing is associated with the claims file. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, with diabetic retinopathy and peripheral vascular disease, is remanded. At the November 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran contended for the first time that he was exposed to herbicides during service in Thailand. As the Veteran’s main contention of exposure to herbicides had been that he had been in Vietnam during a layover in his flight to Thailand, development of his claim had solely been focused on establishing the Veteran’s presence in Vietnam. Consequently, remand is warranted because more information is needed as to the Veteran’s service in Thailand and his potential exposure to herbicides there before the Board can make a fully informed decision. Thus, on remand, the Veteran’s allegations as to exposure to herbicides in Thailand should be fully developed. Specifically, the Veteran testified that, before being sent to his permanent duty station in Khon Kaen, Thailand, he was temporarily assigned to the airbases at Korat and Udorn. He testified that, after arriving in Bangkok and staying there for two weeks, he was first sent to Korat where he stayed for two weeks policing the area along the perimeter and watching the Thai workers by the fence and “stuff.” After that, they sent him to Udorn for two weeks where he again helped police the perimeter and worked in the area where the planes came in helping take “some of that stuff” off the planes. After that, he was sent to Khon Kaen where he was permanently assigned to a four-man communication relay station. He further testified that the Thai guards sprayed the areas where he lived and worked daily (including the latrine and shower areas when they were using them, as well as the perimeters) at Khon Kaen, and contends that this was herbicides they were spraying. At the hearing, the Veteran’s representative acknowledged that the Veteran’s service records do not corroborate his testimony of having been temporarily assigned to the Korat and Udorn airbases. The Board agrees. However, it is unclear whether the Veteran’s claims file contains his complete service personnel records. As they may contain information regarding the Veteran’s service in Thailand, a remand is required to obtain them. Furthermore, if those records do not establish the Veteran was TDY to Korat and/or Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Bases in January to February 1968, any further efforts available to assist the Veteran in corroborating his report should be undertaken. In addition, at the hearing, the Veteran and his representative stated that they would be submitted a report of approximately 52 pages in length regarding Philco Ford and activities in Thailand when the Veteran was stationed there (“Philco Ford report”). However, no such report has been associated with the Veteran’s claims file. If the Veteran wishes to have this Philco Ford report considered, he will need to resubmit it. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and advise him that his claims file does not contain a copy of the Philco Ford report that he said he was submitting at his November 2016 hearing. Therefore, if he wishes VA to consider this report, he needs to submit it. Since this report is supposedly 52 pages long, it would also be helpful if he could either highlight the specific passages or identify the pages that are relevant to his claim. 2. Provide all necessary assistance to develop the Veteran’s contention that he was exposed to herbicides while serving in Thailand, to include obtaining a full copy of his service personnel records and, if necessary, conducting any further assistance to corroborate that the Veteran was sent TDY to the Royal Thai Air Force Bases at Korat and Udorn from January to February 1968. His claim that Thai personnel also sprayed herbicides where he lived and worked in Khon Kaen at a four-man communications relay base should also be considered and developed as necessary.   3. Readjudicate the Veteran’s claim with consideration of his new argument that his diabetes mellitus, type II, and related complications are the result of exposure to herbicides while serving in Thailand. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S.M. Kreitlow