Citation Nr: 18148737
Decision Date: 11/08/18	Archive Date: 11/08/18

DOCKET NO. 10-37 473
DATE:	November 8, 2018
REMANDED
Service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, is remanded.  
Service connection for prostatectomy status post carcinoma is remanded.  
 
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active military service from September 1966 to September 1969.  
The Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge at a videoconference hearing in February 2014.  A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the e file.
The law requires that the Veterans Law Judge who conducts a hearing on an appeal must participate in any decision made on that appeal.  38 U.S.C. § 7107 (c) (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 20.707.  In April 2016, the Board sent a letter to the Veteran and his representative, which explained that the Veterans Law Judge who presided over his February 2014 hearing was no longer available to participate in the appeal and offered the Veteran a hearing before a different Veterans Law Judge; otherwise, if he did not respond in 30 days, the case would be reassigned.  Neither the Veteran nor his representative responded.  Thus, the Board will proceed with the matter on appeal. 
In a February 2018 memorandum decision, the Court vacated and remanded the Board’s October 2016 denial, finding the Board erred in failing to assist in the development of evidence that may have shown exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange during service.
1. Service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, is remanded.  
2. Service connection for prostatectomy status post carcinoma is remanded.  
The Board has determined that prior to the adjudicating the claims on appeal, remand is necessary in order to complete the record.  
At the Veteran’s hearing and again at the Court, portions of an article from the Japanese newspaper, titled. Ryukyu Shimpo Paper, were read into the record by the Veteran’s representative.  According to the Veteran’s representative, this article discussed levels of Agent Orange debris found in Okinawa City to exceed environmentally quality standard.  
At present, a complete copy of the article is not of record.  The Board finds that a copy of this article should be obtained since it is central to the Veteran’s arguments in support of the claim.  
As such, remand for such article is necessary prior to adjudication.  
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Contact the Veteran and his representative to ask that they provide a complete copy of the article from the Ryukyu Shimpo Paper, dated August 1, 2013, portions of which were read into the record at the Veteran’s hearing in February 2014.  
2. If the Veteran or his representative is unable to locate the article, the AOJ must undertake all reasonable efforts to obtain a complete copy of the article from any other source.  
(Continued on the next page)
 
3. If the article is determined to be unavailable, the claims file should be annotated to reflect what actions the AOJ took to locate such article and the appellant should be notified of such.
 
C. BOSELY
Acting Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	K. Anderson