Citation Nr: 18143877 Decision Date: 10/22/18 Archive Date: 10/22/18 DOCKET NO. 16-62 008 DATE: October 22, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for carcinoid tumor, small intestines, to include as due to exposure to herbicides is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1963 to September 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In his substantive appeal, the Veteran raised a claim for service connection for high blood pressure (hypertension) as a result of his exposure to herbicides. See December 2016 VA Form 9. Effective March 24, 2015, when a claimant submits a communication indicating their desire to file a claim for benefits, but the communication does not meet the standards of a complete claim for benefits, the communication will be considered a request for an application form for benefits under 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(a). 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a); 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014) (codified in 38 C.F.R Parts 3, 19, and 20 (2016)). When such a communication is received, the AOJ shall notify the claimant of the information needed to complete the application form or form prescribed by the Secretary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a); 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014). A complete claim on an application form designed for the purpose is required for all types of claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(d). This request is referred to the AOJ for appropriate action to be determined by the AOJ in accordance with the revised regulations. Entitlement to service connection for carcinoid tumor, small intestines, to include as due to exposure to herbicides is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his carcinoid tumor of the small intestines is due to in-service herbicide exposure while serving temporary duty (TDY) in Vietnam in 1966. See December 2016 VA Form 9. The Board notes that a veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975 is presumed to have been exposed to certain herbicide agents during that service, absent affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). To establish service connection based on that presumption, the evidence must show manifestation of a presumptive disease to a degree of 10 percent or more within the time period specified for each disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). The Board notes that a carcinoid tumor is not listed as a disease associated with herbicide exposure. However, notwithstanding the fact that the Veteran’s diagnosed carcinoid tumor is not subject to presumptive service connection on the basis of herbicide exposure, the Veteran could still establish service connection for his condition with competent evidence that it was incurred in service, was present during other presumptive periods, or by submitting medical or scientific evidence that it was in fact due to herbicide exposure during service. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007); see Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted a medical statement by his oncologist which opined that his carcinoid tumor may be related to his alleged herbicide exposure. See March 2016 Moffitt Cancer Center Letter. However, service in Vietnam has not been verified. As noted above, the Veteran asserts that he served TDY in Vietnam around September 1966, while stationed in Japan. Although the Veteran has been awarded a Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), his military personnel records are silent regarding any TDY in Vietnam. See Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168, 1196 (holding that service in Vietnam will not be presumed based on the Veteran’s receipt of a VSM). He has submitted a document suggesting that he served on TDY, but the document does not indicate a location. As such, VA should make an effort to verify the Veteran’s alleged service in Vietnam. On remand, the RO should request information regarding the Veteran’s unit, specifically its history of deployments between January 1966 to May 1967, the period during which the Veteran was stationed in Japan, per his military records, and any TDY, to include TDY to Vietnam. See Undated Chronological Listing of Service. The Veteran has also submitted a December 2015 statement by his wife which states that the Veteran first began experienced stomach discomfort and pain upon his separation from service in September 1967. She further stated that the Veteran continued to have stomach complaints until he was diagnosed with a small intestine carcinoid tumor. See December 2015 Lay Statement. In light of the evidence of stomach symptomatology since service and a later diagnosis of malignant cancer, the Board finds that a remand is also necessary to obtain a medical opinion on the nature and etiology of his small intestine carcinoid tumor. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Take appropriate action to verify the Veteran’s assertion that he served temporary duty in Vietnam around September 1966, while he was stationed in Japan. This inquiry should not be limited to this one month. Rather, it should encompass the entire period during which the Veteran was stationed in Japan, that is, from January 1966 to May 1967. If the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) or any other source is only able to conduct a search for a three-month time period, then separate inquiries should be made for the periods of January to March 1966, April to June 1966, July to September 1966, October to December 1966, January to March 1967, April to June 1967. 2. Obtain all outstanding private and VA treatment records pertinent to this claim. 3. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate examiner. The claims file and any other relevant evidence should be made available to the examiner. After review of the evidence, the examiner should opine whether, despite the lack of presumption, it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s carcinoid tumor, small intestine, had its clinical onset in service or is related to any incident of service, to include any verified herbicide exposure. In reaching this opinion the examiner should consider and address the March 2016 oncologist’s statement as well as the competent and credible statements of the Veteran’s wife documenting his stomach symptomatology. (Continued on the next page)   A complete rationale must be provided for any opinion offered. LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. M. Stedman, Associate Counsel