Citation Nr: 18152253 Decision Date: 11/21/18 Archive Date: 11/21/18 DOCKET NO. 16-16 356 DATE: November 21, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded Entitlement to service connection for bilateral diabetic renal insufficiency is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral diabetic retinopathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetic third nerve palsy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a cerebrovascular accident is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Air Force from May 1970 to March 1974. The appellant is his surviving spouse. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of November 2015 RO decision that determined that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen claims for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus and for hypertension. By this decision, the RO also denied service connection for bilateral diabetic renal insufficiency; bilateral diabetic retinopathy; diabetic third nerve palsy; residuals of a cerebrovascular accident; and for erectile dysfunction. The RO further denied a claim for a TDIU. The Board observes that the November 2015 RO decision determined that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen claims for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus and for hypertension. The Board notes that service connection for diabetes mellitus was previously denied in final February 2009 and October 2012 RO decisions. Additionally, the Board notes that service connection for hypertension was previously denied in a final February 2009 RO decision. Because the development below seeks to investigate whether service records show the Veteran was exposed to herbicides it is premature to adjudicate whether the claims should be reopened. See Vigil v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 63 (2008). The Veteran withdrew his Board hearing request in September 2018. The Veteran died in September 2018 during the pendency of this appeal. The appellant has been substituted as the claimant for the purposes of processing the Veteran’s claim on appeal to completion. 38 U.S.C. § 5121A (West 2014). The appellant contends that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus; bilateral diabetic renal insufficiency; bilateral diabetic retinopathy; diabetic third nerve palsy; residuals of a cerebrovascular accident; hypertension; and erectile dysfunction, are all related to service, to include as due to Agent Orange exposure. The appellant also maintains that the Veteran’s bilateral diabetic renal insufficiency; bilateral diabetic retinopathy; diabetic third nerve palsy; and residuals of a cerebrovascular accident, are secondary to his diabetic mellitus. The appellant asserts that the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange while serving at the U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand during his period of service. In statements prior his death, the Veteran indicated that he was stationed at the U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand from October 1972 to January 1974 and that he performed work along the perimeter while serving at that base. He stated that upon his arrival at the U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base, he was given a special security clearance for his duties to go around the outer perimeter of the base. He reported that he was assigned to secure the outer perimeter of the base and flight line. He stated that he was required to drive around the outer perimeter of the landing strip several times a day, and that he also drove along the flight lines, often with his windows open. The Veteran also reported that his duties entailed getting out of his fire truck and walking around the outer perimeter to retrieve parachutes. As noted above, the Veteran served on active duty in the Air Force from May 1970 to March 1974. His DD Form 214 lists his occupational specialty as a fire protection specialist. The Veteran received decorations including the Vietnam Service Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. His service personnel records, as well as his service treatment records, indicate that he served at the U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand from, apparently, September 1972 to January 1974. A September 2008 response from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) indicates that the NPRC was unable to determine whether or not the Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam. An October 2012 response from the NPRC indicates that there were no records that the Veteran had exposure to herbicides (Agent Orange). The Board notes that a current VA memorandum, Public Health, Thailand Military Bases and Agent Orange Exposure, indicates that Vietnam-era veterans whose service involved duty on or near the perimeters of military bases in Thailand anytime between February 28, 1961, and May 7, 1975, may have been exposed to herbicides and may qualify for VA benefits. The memorandum specifically indicates that Air Force veterans who served at the Royal Thai Air Force base in Thailand, near the air base perimeter, anytime between February 28, 1961, and May 7, 1975, may have been exposed to herbicides. The VA Memorandum notes that to receive benefits for diseases associated with herbicide exposure, these veterans must show on a factual basis that they were exposed to herbicides during their service as shown by evidence of daily work duties, performance evaluation reports, or other credible service. The Board notes that the Veteran’s available service personnel records do not specifically show that he was exposed to herbicides during his daily work duties, or pursuant to his performance evaluation reports. The Board observes that there is no indication in the record that there has been an attempt to corroborate the Veteran’s reports of exposure to Agent Orange at the Royal Thai Air Force base in Thailand. In fact, in an October 2012 memorandum, a Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) coordinator at the RO found that there was a lack of information to attempt to corroborate in-country service in Thailand, as well as Agent Orange exposure. The Board finds, however, that as the appellant, and the Veteran, have specifically alleged exposure to herbicides at the U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand, an attempt should be made to verify the Veteran’s alleged Agent Orange exposure through the JSRRC. The Board also notes that there is no indication that the Veteran’s entire Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), to include his Special Orders, has been requested. VA is required to make reasonable efforts to help a claimant obtain records relevant to his claim, whether or not the records are in Federal custody. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(1) (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1) (2017). In Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992), the Court held that VA has constructive notice of VA generated documents that could reasonably be expected to be part of the record, and that such documents are thus constructively part of the record before the Secretary and the Board, even where they are not actually before the adjudicating body. Accordingly, an attempt should be made to obtain the Veteran’s entire OMPF. Finally, as the Veteran’s claim for a TDIU rating is inextricably intertwined with his claims for service connection, those matters must be addressed together on remand. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), or any other appropriate service department offices, to obtain the Veteran’s entire Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), including all records of his assignments, whether permanent or temporary duty stations; all travel orders; pay stubs that reflect special pay status, travel vouchers, dislocation allowance and all TDY orders. It is specifically noted that the Veteran reports that he worked on the perimeter while serving at the U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand, apparently from September 1972 to January 1974. Efforts to obtain the foregoing records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified by each Federal department or agency from whom they are sought and this should be documented for the record. 2. Thereafter, request that JSRRC, or other official source, investigate and attempt to verify the Veteran’s reports of alleged exposure to Agent Orange while serving at the U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand, apparently from September 1972 to January 1974. JSRRC must also be asked to provide the histories of the Veteran’s unit(s) during the time he served at that facility in Thailand. If more detailed information is needed for this research, the Veteran should be given an opportunity to provide it. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. D. Regan, Counsel