Citation Nr: 18148485 Decision Date: 11/07/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 16-37 824 DATE: November 7, 2018 REMANDED Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of service connection for a heart disability, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a thyroid disability, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from July 1973 to December 1974. The Veteran seeks service connection for a heart disability, a thyroid disability, and diabetes mellitus and contends that these conditions were caused by his exposure to agent orange while in service. Establishing service connection generally requires (1) a current disability; (2) evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Applicable regulations provide that a veteran who served on active duty in Vietnam during the Vietnam era is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange or similar herbicide. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(1)(6)(iii) (2017). The specific statute pertaining to claimed Agent Orange exposure is 38 U.S.C. § 1116. Regulations issued pursuant thereto stipulate the diseases for which service connection may be presumed due to an association with exposure to herbicide agents. Although ischemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus are among those disabilities subject to presumptive service connection, the Veteran’s claimed thyroid disability is not. Nonetheless, regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d); see also Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, the Veteran contends that he was exposed to agent orange while stationed in Okinawa, Japan in 1974. Specifically, he reported that the area where he was stationed was sprayed with a defoliant which he was told to be Agent Orange. He reported that he began to have health problems including heart pains, palpitations, swallowing, and stomach problems while in service. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of hypothyroidism, diabetes mellitus, and left ventricular hypertrophy. In reviewing the evidence, the Board finds that a remand is required as the development mandated by VBA Manual M21-1 for claims based on exposure to herbicides (other than in the Republic of Vietnam, the Korean DMZ, or Thailand) has not been complied with. The procedures set forth in M21-1 indicate that if the Compensation Service’s review does not confirm that herbicides were used as alleged, the RO must refer the case to the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (“JSRRC”), if appropriate. Here, the Veteran has submitted several written correspondences providing specific details of his alleged exposure to agent orange, to include photographs, that would warrant referral to the JSRRC. However, this information has not been referred as required for further investigation. On remand, the AOJ must refer the case to the JSRRC to attempt to verify the Veteran’s exposure to agent orange while in service. If the evidence verifies exposure to an herbicide agent in service, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination or opinion to address whether his claimed diabetes, thyroid, and heart disabilities are related to such exposure. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Update the file with any VA treatment records relevant to the Veteran’s claims to the present. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran and his representative should be notified of such. 2. Send a request to the JSRRC for verification of the Veteran’s alleged herbicide exposure during his service. If sufficient information required to attempt to verify herbicides exposure does not exist, the JSRRC coordinator must make a formal finding to that effect. 3. After all available evidence has been associated with the record, the AOJ should review the evidence and determine if further development is warranted. If the evidence of record verifies exposure to an herbicide agent in service, a VA examination or opinion should be obtained to address whether the Veteran’s claimed thyroid, heart, and diabetes conditions are related to such exposure. (Continued on the next page)   4. After completion of the foregoing, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case and afford them the appropriate time period for response. Then, return the case to the Board. GAYLE E. STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Laffitte, Associate Counsel