Citation Nr: 18154866 Decision Date: 11/30/18 Archive Date: 11/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-49 804 DATE: November 30, 2018 REMANDED Service connection for respiratory condition is remanded. Service connection for vision loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Coast Guard from January 1981 to April 1985. 1. Service connection for respiratory condition is remanded. 2. Service connection for vision loss is remanded. The Veteran contends he was exposed to chemicals and toxins while serving on the USCGC Chase, to include asbestos, green death, red lead, epoxy-polyamide, zinc chromate, lead or latex paints, acetone, and/or JPS or diesel fuel. He contends that he sanded, chipped, primed, and painted ship surfaces, often without masks or eye protection. See October 2016 Veteran statement, September 2015 B.M. statement, October 2015 M.N. statement, October 2015 D.S. statement, December 2015 J.M. statement, December 2015 E.O. statement, and February 2016 C.W. statement. First, development must be conducted to attempt to verify the Veteran’s exposure to asbestos and other hazardous materials in service. Second, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination for his respiratory or vision symptoms. An examination and opinion are necessary to determine the nature and etiology of these symptoms. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records from February 2016 to the present. 2. Obtain deck logs for the USCGC Chase (WHEC 718) from June 30, 1981 to June 30, 1983. 3. Conduct the appropriate development to verify or determine the likelihood the Veteran was exposed to asbestos, green death (aluminum oxide), red lead (acid chromates), mare island epoxy (epoxy-polyamide), zinc chromate, lead or latex paints, acetone, or JPS or diesel fuel while serving on the USCGC Chase. See October 2016 Veteran statement, September 2015 B.M. statement, October 2015 M.N. statement, October 2015 D.S. statement, December 2015 J.M. statement, December 2015 E.O. statement, and February 2016 C.W. statement. 4. After the above development is completed to the extent possible, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any respiratory symptoms. For any respiratory diagnosis identified during the appeal period or on examination, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to service. If asbestos exposure or other hazardous material exposure has been conceded by VA, the examiner must specifically discuss the likelihood that any identified respiratory condition is related to that exposure. If VA is unable to verify exposure to the contended hazardous materials, the examiner must still provide an opinion based on the Veteran’s lay statements and his fellow shipmates’ statements describing his duties on the USCGC Chase sanding, chipping, priming, and painting ship surfaces, often without breathing protection. In addition, the examiner should address the Veteran’s contention that during a four-month dry dock billet, he stood daily fire watches without mask protection. See July 1984 Medical Surveillance Questionnaire, October 2016 Veteran statement, September 2015 B.M. statement, October 2015 M.N. statement, October 2015 D.S. statement, December 2015 J.M. statement, December 2015 E.O. statement, and February 2016 C.W. statement. The examiner must provide a detailed rationale for any opinion expressed. If an opinion cannot be given without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). 5. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any vision impairment, to include floaters. For any vision diagnosis identified during the appeal period or on examination, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to service. The examiner must discuss the Veteran’s lay statements and his fellow shipmates’ statements describing his duties on the USCGC Chase sanding, chipping, priming, and painting ship surfaces, often without eye protection. In addition, the examiner should address the Veteran’s contention that during a four-month dry dock billet, he stood daily fire watches without eye protection. See July 1984 Medical Surveillance Questionnaire, July 2016 notice of disagreement, October 2016 Veteran statement, September 2015 B.M. statement, October 2015 M.N. statement, October 2015 D.S. statement, December 2015 J.M. statement, December 2015 E.O. statement, and February 2016 received C.W. statement. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner must provide a detailed rationale for any opinion expressed. If an opinion cannot be given without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Winkler, Associate Counsel