Citation Nr: 18155722
Decision Date: 12/06/18	Archive Date: 12/04/18

DOCKET NO. 12-19 786
DATE:	December 6, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, including as the result of exposure to hazardous chemicals, including the herbicide Agent Orange, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty form January 1965 to January 1973, with service in the Air National Guard from January 1987 to August 1992.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
This matter was previously before the Board in December 2016 when it was remanded for further development.
Service Connection for Diabetes Mellitus 
Further development is necessary to comply with the terms of the May 2016 remand. In Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims (Court) held that a remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the Board’s remand order. Moreover, the Court further held that the Board itself errs when it fails to ensure compliance with the terms of its remand. Id.   
Per the December 2016 remand, the RO was directed to obtain verification of the Veteran’s dates of Federal active duty service and inform the Veteran and his representative of any negative responses to provide them with the opportunity to provide related documentation.
In response to the Board’s remand directives, in September 2017, the RO obtained a copy of the Veteran’s service personnel record and his pay records and point capture sheet from the Department of Finance and Accounting Services. In December 2017, the RO provided an inconclusive determination with regard to the Veteran’s dates of Federal active duty service, as it found that it could not “take formal documents that provide ACDUTRA/INACDUTRA information and turn it into an informal document and it as valid evidence.” There is no evidence that the RO notified the Veteran and his representative of the response or provided them the opportunity to provide any documents verifying ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. As a result of this Stegall violation, further development is needed.
								    (Continued on the next page)








The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Notify the Veteran and his representative of the inconclusive response dated December 2017 regarding verification of the Veteran’s dates of active Federal service after his regular Air Force discharge in 1973. Provide the Veteran and his representative the opportunity to provide any documents to determine whether the Veteran was on a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA when serving in the Panama Canal in 1989 or 1990.
 
M. H. HAWLEY
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	A. Norwood, Associate Counsel