Citation Nr: 18156356 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/07/18 DOCKET NO. 16-58 952 DATE: December 11, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as due to herbicide exposure (now claimed as due to chemical exposure, pesticides, insecticides and nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) agents) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from May 1968 to May 1970. The October 2016 statement of the case (SOC) also included the issues of entitlement to service connection for depression, lower back problems and erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus type II. However, in his November 2016 appeal to the Board (VA Form 9) the Veteran specifically indicated that he was only appealing the issue of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to the Board. As such, this is the only issue that remains on appeal. The Veteran was previously represented in this matter by AMVETS. However, in January 2017, VA was notified by AMVETS that they were withdrawing their services as the Veteran’s representative. Regrettably, a remand is necessary in this case to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the appellant’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2018). The claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as due to herbicide exposure (now claimed as due to chemical exposure, pesticides, insecticides and nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) agents), is remanded. Although the further delay entailed by remand is regrettable, current adjudication of the Veteran’s claims would be premature. Undertaking additional development prior to a Board decision is the only way to ensure compliance with the duty to assist, as required. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2018). The Appellant seeks service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II due to exposure to herbicides, pesticides, and other harmful chemicals during his initial training and service at Fort Knox Army base from May 1968 to May 1970. While the Board recognizes that there has been no finding by the Department of Defense of the use of herbicidal agents such as Agent Orange in or around Fort Knox, Kentucky, the Veteran has nonetheless alleged exposure to a number of different chemical agents as described below. In an October 2015 statement in support of claim, the Veteran noted that the Chief of the Environmental Management Division, Directorate of Base Operations Support, at Fort Knox, Kentucky acknowledged that pesticides (herbicides, insecticides) were used throughout the installation, including in the dining facilities, barracks, living quarters, administration buildings, and on ranges and golf courses. The Veteran further asserts that he was exposed to herbicides, pesticides, and/or NBC agents while serving in the Panama Canal Zone. Reportedly, the Panama Canal Zone was used as a combat testing ground for tropical environments. Based upon the forgoing, the Board finds that VA must attempt to verify the Veteran’s report of in-service exposure to various alleged chemical agents while stationed at Fort Knox Army base and while serving in the Panama Canal Zone. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Undertake appropriate action to verify, to the extent possible, the Veteran’s alleged exposure to various chemical agents, including herbicides and insecticides/pesticides, during his service at Fort Knox Army base from May 1968 to May 1970. This should also include a direct inquiry to the Environmental Management Division at Fort Knox, or those responsible for building and grounds maintenance at the base. Document the claims file accordingly. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction should also attempt to verify the Veteran’s alleged in-service exposure to chemical agents and NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) agents while serving in the Panama Canal Zone between September 1968 to April 1970. If more details are needed, contact the Veteran to request the information. If there is still insufficient information to verify exposure to herbicide agents, issue a Formal Finding outlining the steps taken to assist the Veteran and notify the Veteran of VA's inability to verify the alleged in-service chemical exposure. 2. Undertake any other development deemed warranted, to include affording the Appellant appropriate VA examinations or obtaining VA etiological opinions. (a.) If it is determined that the Veteran was exposed to chemical agents, either herbicidal/pesticidal in nature or nuclear, biological or chemical, opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s current diabetes mellitus type II manifested as a result of exposure to these chemicals. (b.) If there is no indication of exposure to the above listed types of chemical agents, the examiner should nonetheless opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus type II otherwise manifested during, or as a result of, active military service. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any and all opinions provided. If any opinion cannot be provided without resort to mere speculation, the examiner should fully explain why this is the case and identify what, if any, additional evidence would allow for a more definitive opinion. 3. After completing of all of the above, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued to the Veteran and his representative and they should be afforded the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board for further appellate action. The Appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (2014). B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Whitaker, Associate Counsel