Citation Nr: 18157555 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 16-55 509 DATE: December 13, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type I is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from October 1977 to January 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2011 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio. The Veteran testified before the undersigned at a hearing in March 2018. A transcript is of record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type I is remanded. The Veteran contends that his diabetes mellitus is related to service. He asserts that his symptoms during service and within one year of discharge were manifestations of the disease. All outstanding treatment records should be associated with the claims file. Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786 (2016). In a December 2010 affidavit, the affiant (the Veteran’s mother) stated that the Veteran moved to Dayton, Ohio in January 1985, where he became very ill due to his diabetic condition. After receiving a telephone call from Dr. F., the affiant found the Veteran in the hospital at Dayton, Ohio. The affiant stated that the medical doctors diagnosed diabetes mellitus and prescribed a 60 unit a day injection of NPH insulin. VA treatment records from this hospital and/or treatment records from Dr. F. from approximately 1985 are not associated with the file. The Veteran reported at the May 2018 Board Hearing that he received Social Security Disability Income. In April 2018, the Veteran submitted a Social Security Administration (SSA) letter dated March 2018 and a medical report dated October 2007. However, the Veteran and his representative were unable to obtain the SSA decision or supporting medical records potentially associated with the SSA claim. The Veteran’s SSA records are potentially relevant to the diabetes mellitus claim; thus, the RO should attempt to associate these records with the claims file. The Board also finds VA has a duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating his claim by providing him an examination. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, type I. The Veteran reported that he experienced diabetic symptoms during service, including low energy, varying mood excessive thirst, hunger, and frequent urination. In a March 2018 letter, Dr. B., the Veteran’s treatment provider opined that the Veteran more likely than not developed type I diabetes mellitus prior to his diagnosis and treatment in January 1980. Dr. B. further indicated that the disease may have been present while he was still in the Navy. Accordingly, the Board finds that the “low” threshold of McLendon has been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA medical records, including those from the VAMC in Dayton, Ohio. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for treatment received for diabetes mellitus from a private provider, including Dr. F. Make two requests for the authorized records from this physician, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. If the records are unavailable, document the claims file and notify the Veteran in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 3. Contact the SSA for records related to the Veteran’s disability benefits claim and take appropriate steps to obtain those records. If the records are unavailable, document the claims file and notify the Veteran in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 4. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his diabetes mellitus. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus was incurred during service or, is otherwise related to the Veteran’s active military service; or, manifested within a year of service discharge. A complete rationale for these opinions must be provided. The rationale should reflect consideration of the pertinent evidence of record, to specifically include the lay statements by the Veteran describing the nature and onset of his symptoms, the December 2010 affidavit from his mother, and the March 2018 letter from Dr. B. If the examiner is unable to render an opinion regarding etiology, he or she must provide a rationale as to why this is so and state whether there is additional evidence that would permit an opinion to be rendered. D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Lauritzen, Associate Counsel