Citation Nr: 18156990
Decision Date: 12/11/18	Archive Date: 12/11/18

DOCKET NO. 15-24 689
DATE:	December 11, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from April 1971 to April 1975.  This matter is on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision, which denied entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type 2.
Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, is remanded.
A review of the claims file reveals that a remand is necessary before a decision on the merits of the claim can be reached.
The Veteran contends that he incurred diabetes mellitus, type 2, during active service or, alternatively, his current diabetes mellitus is related to service.  He specifically contends that he was exposed to herbicides (Agent Orange) while working on the flight line at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) between June 1973 and July 1974 and such exposure caused or contributed to his diabetes mellitus, type 2.
The Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s available service personnel records and service treatment records indicate that he served at Korat RTAFB in Thailand from June 1973 to July 1974.  The Board also acknowledges that Korat RTAFB is one of the locations where herbicides were used in Thailand during the Vietnam Era.  A review of the Veteran’s available service personnel records indicates that he served as an aerospace ground equipment repairman.  
Considering that the Veteran served at a Royal Thai Air Force Base during the Vietnam Era, the RO/AMC should undertake further development as to whether he was exposed to herbicide agents on a “facts found basis” by contacting the United States Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) to determine whether sufficient information exists to verify herbicide exposure.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Ask the Veteran to identify for the record the approximate dates, locations, and nature of his alleged exposure to Agent Orange in Thailand during the Vietnam Era. 
2. Determine whether the information he provides is sufficient to seek verification of the alleged exposures.  If so, forward the list of the Veteran’s service dates and duty locations (specifically at the Korat RTAFB) and his contentions regarding the nature of his exposures to herbicides in service to the JSRRC and request verification of such exposure.  The results of this development should be outlined in a memorandum for the record.  If the information is deemed insufficient, forward the case to a JSRRC coordinator for a formal finding (for the record) that the information provided is insufficient to verify exposure to herbicides in service (explaining what further information would be needed).
3. Once the above-requested development has been completed, the claim must be readjudicated.  If any determination remains unfavorable to the Veteran, he and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) that addresses all relevant actions taken on the claim for benefits, and be given an opportunity to respond to the SSOC.  The case must then be returned to the Board for further consideration, if otherwise in order.
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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.
 
KELLI A. KORDICH
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	T. Moore, Associate Counsel