Citation Nr: 18147223 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-29 822 DATE: November 2, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral leg disorder, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from February 1968 to June 1970. The Veteran’s military personnel records show service in Vietnam beginning in April 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2014 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which, in part, denied the Veteran’s claim for a bilateral leg disorder. The Board notes that, in his June 2016 substantive appeal, the Veteran stated that his bilateral knee disorder claim should also be on appeal. He indicated that he had never intended for the bilateral leg and bilateral knee issues to be separate claims. The Veteran also stated that the April 2016 Statement of the Case (SOC) included language regarding his knees, and as such, supported his belief that his knee claim was on appeal. However, the Veteran’s May 2013 claim form listed his bilateral leg and knee claims separately. The claims were then decided in two separate rating decisions; the leg claim was addressed in a February 2014 rating decision, and the knee claim was discussed in an April 2014 decision. The Veteran then submitted a notice of disagreement, which only addressed the bilateral leg claim and a posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) claim. The RO issued an SOC covering the bilateral leg and PTSD claims in April 2016. The Board notes that, while the RO mentioned the Veteran’s knees in the SOC, it did so to illustrate that the Veteran had reported knee pain in 1968 and was being treated for a knee disorder, but not a leg disorder. The discussion was within the context of the bilateral leg claim and was not broad enough, nor intended to encompass the knee claim. In fact, the SOC also noted that the Veteran’s knee claim had been previously denied without a timely appeal. As such, the Board finds that the knee claim is not currently on appeal. With regard to the statements regarding the knee disorder claim, the Veteran and his representative are also advised that a claim for benefits must be submitted on the application form prescribed by the Secretary. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 (p), 3.155, 3.160. Additionally, although the April 2016 SOC included the issue of an increased evaluation for PTSD, the Veteran did not submit a substantive appeal for that issue. As such, the PTSD claim is also not on appeal to the Board. After review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that a remand is necessary in this case. Despite the Veteran’s statement that his bilateral leg pain is related to his knees, the Board notes that a VA medical record dated in March 2015 shows that he has been diagnosed with bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities. The Board also notes that the Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. As such, he is presumed to have been exposed to certain herbicide agents during such service. As such, the Board finds that a VA medical examination is necessary to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s current peripheral neuropathy. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for legs, to include peripheral neuropathy. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. Any outstanding VA medical records should also be obtained and associated with the claims file. 2. After the above development has been completed, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any bilateral leg disorder present, to include any peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran’s service treatment records, post-service medical records, and assertions. It should be noted that the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to certain herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, during his military service. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has peripheral neuropathy or any other leg disorder that is related to his military service, to include his herbicide exposure therein (regardless of the fact that such an association may not be presumed). (The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of a certain conclusion as it is to find against it.) A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. Because it is important “that each disability be viewed in relation to its history [,]” 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, copies of all pertinent records in the appellant’s claims file, or in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review. 3. After completing these actions, the AOJ should conduct any other development as may be indicated by a response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Rideout-Davidson, Counsel