Citation Nr: 18155090 Decision Date: 12/03/18 Archive Date: 12/03/18 DOCKET NO. 11-32 556 DATE: December 3, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for chronic immune sensory polyradiculopathy (CISP) (claimed as peripheral neuropathy of lower extremities) due to herbicide exposure, to include Operation Ranch Hand C-123 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from October 1979 to December 1979. He also served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from April 1980 to July 1980, July 1980 to March 1985, and August 1985 to August 1989. This appeal to the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) arose from a July 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran has perfected a timely appeal. See June 2011 Notice of Disagreement; November 2011 Statement of the Case (SOC); December 2011 Substantive Appeal (VA Form 9). The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board. The requested hearing was conducted in June 2015 by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for chronic immune sensory polyradiculopathy (CISP) (claimed as peripheral neuropathy of lower extremities) due to herbicide exposure, to include Operation Ranch Hand C-123 is remanded. After a thorough review of the Veteran's claims file, the Board has determined that additional evidentiary development is necessary prior to the adjudication of the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for CISP due to herbicide exposure. The Veteran contends that he developed CISP from exposure to dioxins while he was stationed in Fort McClellan, Alabama. The Veteran has asserted that the base has been referred to as “the most polluted superfund site in the United States.” The Veteran states that he was exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as a result of being adjacent to the Monsanto plant, which was a major producer of PCBs. In addition to Fort McClellan, the Veteran asserts that serving on the Maxwell Air Force Base and Gunter Air Force Base in Alabama made him susceptible to PCBs exposure. The Veteran also stresses that he is claiming exposure to dioxins that are a major component of Agent Orange, not Agent Orange specifically. The Veteran states that the first symptoms of his disability occurred in the summer of 1990, when he felt weakness in his ankles and had a “foot flop”. The Veteran’s co-workers also contend noticing the Veteran’s walk during the summer of 1990, expressing that it seemed that the Veteran did not have control of his foot. The Veteran’s personnel records show that he did serve on Fort McClellan base, Seymour Johnson Air Base, Maxwell Air Base, and Gunter Air Base during his active service in the Army and Air Force. Private medical records show that the Veteran was initially given the impression of peripheral neuropathy in March 2000. In February 2001, the Veteran received another impression of peripheral neuropathy of an unknown cause. In a private medical letter dated July 2015, the Veteran’s doctor states that he examined the Veteran in September of 2013. The Veteran was diagnosed with a form of chronic inflammatory demyelineating polyneuropathy (CIDP), which is termed chronic immune sensory polyradiculopathy (CISP), which is a sensory predominant inflammatory neuropathy that selectively involves sensory nerve roots. The doctor further explains that CISP is an autoimmune-based neuropathy and it is not understood why people develop the condition. He also opined that it is not known if multiple exposures to toxins make people more susceptible to developing CISP. The doctor stated that it is certainly possible that the Veteran developed CISP due to toxin exposure but he definitely does not know for certain. At the June 2015 hearing, the Veteran presented evidence of a settlement regarding the dumping of PCBs into the soil, creeks, and the air of Anniston, Alabama. Soil samples taken at Fort McClellan in 1998 showed that presence of dioxins according to a report. The Veteran presented evidence of reports regarding toxins use at Fort McClellan. He stated that the report listed the toxins agent orange, agent white, agent blue, silvex, tordon 101, chemical warfare agents, mustard gas and sarin. In its November 2015 remand, the Board directed the Regional Office (RO) to conduct the necessary development to determine whether the Veteran regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft, known to be used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam Era. The RO was also instructed to verify whether the Veteran was exposed to toxins while stationed at Fort McClellan, Maxwell Air Force Base and Gunter Air Force Base. Pursuant to the Board’s November 2015 remand instructions, the RO contacted Compensation and Pension Service to verify the Veteran’s contentions using the Department of Defense (DoD) records. In June 2017, the Compensation and Pension service responded that the DoD has not identified Fort McClellan, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, or Gunter Air Force Base as locations where Agent Orange was used, tested, stored, or transported. Further, all evidence shows that any herbicide use that the claimant or others observed or were associated with was the commercial variety, not Agent Orange. The RO was directed to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for any information to corroborate the Veteran’s claimed exposure. The RO contacted JSRRC for verification regarding the Veteran’s possible exposure. In a response received October 2017, the JSRRC responded, through the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS), that they coordinated their research with the National Archives and Records Administration. They were unable to locate the 1979 unit records submitted by Company A, 1st Basic Training Battalion at Fort McClellan. Due to the lack of records, they were unable to document the Veteran’s claimed exposure to Agent Orange while stationed at Fort McClellan. No other toxins were addressed regarding Fort McClellan base. In a November 2017 reply, the JSRRC responded through DPRIS that the request could not be researched because the RO did not provide the specific unit designation and the dates provided were too expansive for the search. The RO was instructed to provide a complete unit of assignment, down to the squadron and group level, and provide a range within a 60-day time period. In a DoD letter dated December 2017, the Armed Forces Best Management Board (AFPMB) replied that the records indicated that Herbicide Orange was never used or tested at, disposed of, transported through, or stored on any of the locations the Veteran served on during active duty. It was also noted that PCBs, mustard gas, and sarin are not pesticides and fall outside the purview of AFPMB, so AFPMB were unable to address those exposures. In July 2018, the JSRRC through DPRIS responded that they researched the January to June 1984 histories submitted by the 68th Air Refueling Group, stationed at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. Those histories did not indicate that the Veteran served as a public affairs officer or executive officer while assigned to the 68th AMS. The histories also did not show that the Veteran or any personnel assigned to that squadron were exposed to Agent Orange or tactical herbicides while performing maintenance. Regarding Gunter Air Force Base, the request could not be researched because the request did not provide the complete unit of assignment. The RO listed “Headquarters, Standard Systems” as the unit of assignment. The JSRRC responded that it was not the complete unit of assignment and to refer to the Compensation Service Bulletin dated March 2014. There was no response regarding toxin exposure at the Maxwell Air Force Base, although a request was submitted, unit of assignment listed as “HQ 3800th Air Base Wing”. Rather than resubmit a request to JSRRC for Maxwell and Gunter Air Force bases, the RO issued a formal finding based on JSRRC being unable to confirm exposure to tactical herbicides or any other claimed toxic agents based on unit of assignment. Additionally, VA stated that based upon the response for JSRRC, it was determined that no additional evidentiary development was necessary for the Veteran’s claim. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that further efforts should be undertaken to attempt to verify the Veteran’s claimed herbicide exposures that complies with the Board’s November 2015 remand instructions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Undertake any necessary development to independently verify the exposures documented throughout the claims file and detailed above regarding Maxwell Air Force Base and Gunter Air Force Base. Development should include contacting the United States Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), or other appropriate agency, using the very detailed unit information, date of occurrence information, and names of witnesses provided by the Veteran and his representative on multiple occasions, as well as the information available in the Veteran's service personnel records. The agencies contacted should provide any available information that might corroborate the Veteran's alleged herbicide exposures from his periods of active military service. Any additional action necessary for independent verification of the particular alleged toxin exposure, including follow-up action requested by the contacted entity, should be accomplished. If the search for corroborating information leads to negative results, the AOJ /RO must notify the Veteran and his representative of this fact, explain the efforts taken to obtain this information, and describe any further action to be taken. If the Veteran's described herbicide exposure lack sufficient information for verification, such should be noted in a formal finding. 2. After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, to include obtaining a VA examination if deemed warranted by the AOJ/RO, the case should again be reviewed by the AOJ/RO on the basis of all of the evidence on the record. (Continued on the next page)   3. If the benefit sought is not granted, the AOJ/RO should furnish the Veteran a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and be given the opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board for further review. DEBORAH W. SINGLETON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Syesa Middleton, Associate Counsel