Citation Nr: 18144843 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/25/18 DOCKET NO. 16-33 563 DATE: October 25, 2018 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for asthma is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran has verified active service in the Air Force from April 16, 1987, to November 10, 1998, May 31, 1999, to July 10, 1999, and March 17, 2003, to September 5, 2003. He had additional service in the Air Force Reserves in the 1980s and 1990s, to include numerous periods of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) and active duty for training (ACDUTRA). Additionally, the Veteran had active federal service pursuant to Title 10 activation in the Air Force National Guard for many periods of time from September 2001 to July 2007. These active service periods varied from 1 day to a maximum of 24 days. Military personnel records reflect that this Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW) was in support of Operation Noble Eagle/Enduring Freedom under Executive Order 13222 and 10 U.S.C. 12302 (2012). Duties performed under ADSW may be for operational, support, or training purposes. If the duty was for training purposes, it is not considered active duty. All other duties performed under ADSW are considered active duty. VAOPGCPREC 25-90 concluded that temporary service for purposes other than training could be defined as active duty, not active duty for training. DoD Directive 1215.6 defines ADSW as a tour of active duty to fulfill support requirements. In this case, military personnel records reflect that during his ADSW periods of duty, the Veteran was “attached for discipline/administration during the period of training.” There are numerous references in his military records as to his ADSW service as active duty. It does not appear that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has made an attempt to verify the nature of the Veteran’s ADSW service. The claim of entitlement to service connection for asthma is remanded. The Veteran contends that he incurred asthma while on Title 10 active duty service. Specifically, he states he was exposed to black mold in his work space which resulted in his developing asthma. In a November 2016 statement, the Veteran explained in detail how during his active duty activation service pursuant to Title 10, he worked in the control room for long shifts. There was no fresh air in the room and it was ultimately shown to have black mold. It was here that he developed breathing problems, ultimately diagnosed as asthma. Added to the record in November 2016 were documents from 2012 as provided by Comprehensive Industrial Hygiene Services, Inc. This report detailed the results of visual inspection and air, wipe, and bulk sampling for fungi conducted at the Pennsylvania Air National Guard at the Pittsburgh National Airport in October and November 2012. The results of this testing showed that water intrusion permeated various areas of the building. The company concluded that spore counts were elevated in numerous areas. After clean-up, it was found that spore levels were acceptable. The testing showed that the spores found were associated with chronic moisture conditions in the building, particularly in the drywall. VA treatment records reflect diagnosis of allergic rhinitis in 2003 with continued treatment (with medication) for rhinitis and asthma through 2007 as reflected in private and National Guard treatment documents. Some of these records reflect treatment at the Pennsylvania Air National Guard Headquarters at the Pittsburgh International Airport. There are additional private treatment records dated in 2014 which show that the Veteran continued to be seen for asthma. Initially, the Board finds that further clarification is needed regarding the Veteran’s periods of ADSW in that it is unclear as to whether this service represented active duty or ADSW for training. As it is the Veteran’s primary contention that his asthma occurred during his ADSW, it is crucial to determine the nature of this service. Moreover, if any ADSW dates are found to be active duty, the Veteran should be afforded a VA medical examination as to the etiology of his asthma. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Undertake appropriate action, to include contacting the Veteran’s Air Force National Guard units, the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), or any other appropriate entity, to obtain any outstanding / available documentation necessary to verify all of the Veteran’s periods of active duty service and the nature / purpose of the Veteran’s responsibilities therein (including any pertinent service personnel records). Attention is directed to the fact that it is crucial to determine whether his service pursuant to Title 10 for the years from 2001 through 2007 should be considered active duty or was he considered to be in training during these years. 2. If, and only if, it is determined that the Veteran had periods of ADSW that were not for training (and thus considered active duty), contact the Veteran and ask that he identify the provider(s) of any additional treatment or evaluation he has received for his asthma, records of which are not already associated with the claims files, and to provide any releases necessary for VA to secure such records of treatment or evaluation. Obtain missing treatment records from all private and VA providers. 3. If development in directive #2 is accomplished, and after all available records have been associated with the claims file, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination for his asthma. The AOJ should insure that the examiner is provided with the complete Veteran’s dates of active duty service as found. The claims file (to include this remand) must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Based on the examination results and a review of the pertinent medical history, the examiner should provide opinions responding to the following: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran’s current asthma is etiologically related to his active duty service. In responding to this question, the examiner should consider the Veteran’s primary contention that his asthma was incurred by his exposure to mold in his work environment during active duty during his ADSW periods of service from 2001 through 2007. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Hal Smith