Citation Nr: 18153984 Decision Date: 11/29/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 17-42 547 DATE: November 29, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence having been submitted, reopening of the claim of entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In an unappealed December 1991 Board decision, the Veteran was denied entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 2. The evidence received since the December 1991 Board decision is not cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the prior denial and relates to an unestablished fact necessary to establish the claim of entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. CONCLUSION OF LAW New and material evidence has been received and the claim of entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active naval service from October 1962 to October 1964 and August 1973 to May 1976, to include service in the Naval Reserves. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an September 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In an August 2017 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested an in-person hearing before a member of the Board. In October 2018, the Veteran stated that he wished to withdraw his request for a hearing scheduled for October 24, 2018. As such, his hearing request is deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (e) (2018). Claim to Reopen In a December 1991 Board decision, the Veteran was denied entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The Board concluded that the Veteran’s service did not include visitation to the Republic of Vietnam or its inland waterways, and that the disability was not present in service or until many years thereafter. The Veteran did not appeal that decision. The evidence that has been received since the December 1991 Board decision includes post-service treatment records, articles on the U.S.S. Iwo Jima, and the Veteran’s lay assertion that while serving aboard the U.S.S. Boxer he was exposed to asbestos and lead paint. The Board finds that the additional evidence is new and material as it has not been previously considered by VA, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim of entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Therefore, reopening of the claim is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND The Board finds that additional development is required before the remaining claim on appeal is decided. The Veteran has contended that his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is due to exposure to herbicides, or in the alternative, is due to exposure asbestos and lead paint. Specifically, the Veteran reported that he served aboard the U.S.S. Boxer and was a member of a tactical air control squadron (TACRON-22). He stated that his military duties included traveling from ship to ship in helo cargo planes, and that he was aboard several ships in the official waters of Vietnam, to include the U.S.S. Iwo Jima and U.S.S. Hermitage, during which time he has alleged that he transported defoliants. Additionally, he reported that he was exposed to lead paint and asbestos while serving aboard the U.S.S. Boxer during the ship’s renovation. He stated that he complained of swollen glands during service. A review of the Veteran’s service personnel records confirm that the Veteran served aboard the U.S.S. Boxer from October 1962 to October 1964 and was a member of TACRON-22 from August 1973 to May 1976. In addition, service treatment records (STRs) confirm that he was aboard additional naval vessels, to include the U.S.S. Iwo Jima, U.S.S. Hermitage, U.S.S. Francis Marion, U.S.S. Shreveport, and U.S.S. Mount Whitney. VA has identified Navy and Coast Guard ships associated with military service in Vietnam and exposure to herbicide agents, to include the U.S.S. Boxer, U.S.S. Iwo Jima, and U.S.S. Hermitage. The Board notes that the Veteran was not aboard those ships during the documented shore activity. However, there is no evidence of record that VA has exhausted all reasonable efforts to verify the Veteran’s service aboard additional ships during his second period of active duty and potential exposure to herbicides. As such, the Board finds that the appropriate development should be conducted upon remand. In addition, STRs documented several complaints of tenderness and swelling in the Veteran’s left testicle and occasional left inguinal pain while he served aboard the U.S.S. Boxer in 1963. He was later treated for acute, left epididymitis, cause unknown, in November 1963, and a left varicocele in February 1964. However, in October 1973, the Veteran received additional treatment for small inflamed lymph nodes in his left inguinal groin region. Private post-service medical records noted that the Veteran discovered a mass in his left groin which later proved to be an enlarged lymph node. In April 1988, the Veteran was diagnosed with malignant lymphoma involving the left superficial inguinal nodes. In light of the Veteran’s in-service complaints of occasional left inguinal pain and treatment for inflamed lymph nodes in his left inguinal groin region during service, and the post-service diagnosis of malignant lymphoma involving the left superficial inguinal nodes; the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). In addition, current treatment records should be identified and obtained before a decision is made with regard to the remaining issue on appeal. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct the appropriate development to verify all of the Veteran’s service aboard any naval vessels in an effort to verify any potential exposure to herbicides during his active service, to specifically include obtaining a list of duty assignments during his second period of active duty. 2. Identify and obtain any other outstanding service records, to specifically include a complete copy of the Veteran’s service personnel record and additional service treatment records. 3. Identify and obtain any outstanding, pertinent VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 4. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Based on the examination results and the review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service, to include exposure to asbestos and lead paint. The examiner should address the in-service treatment for occasional left inguinal pain and inflamed lymph nodes in the Veteran’s left inguinal groin region and the Veteran’s lay assertion that he was exposed to asbestos and lead paint during the renovation of the U.S.S. Boxer. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 5. Confirm that all development conducted complies with this remand and undertake any additional development determined to be warranted. 6. Then, readjudicate the remaining claim on appeal. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow the appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Ware, Associate Counsel