Citation Nr: 18157732 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 16-48 538 DATE: December 13, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from January 1970 to January 1972. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claims so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2017). 1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. At the outset the Board notes that the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is part and parcel with his recently submitted claim of bilateral hearing loss. The issues are inextricably intertwined inasmuch that further development for his hearing loss claim could affect the outcome of this claim. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are “inextricably intertwined” when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision cannot be rendered unless both are adjudicated). Thus, further consideration of the claim must be deferred to avoid piecemeal adjudication. See Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337 (1996). 2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded. The Veteran alleges his diabetes mellitus, type II is caused by in-service exposure to herbicides while serving in Korea. Specifically, the Veteran described working as a heavy truck driver delivering supplies near the demilitarized zone (DMZ). Also, the Veteran reported being exposed to herbicides while serving at Camp Casey, Camp Red Cloud, Camp Bonifas with the Second Division and ICOR in the 696th ordinance. VA has developed specific procedures to determine whether a Veteran was exposed to herbicides when they allege exposure to herbicides in locations other than the Republic of Vietnam, along the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ), or Thailand. See M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chap. 1, Sec. H, Para. 7(a). The Veterans Benefits Administration’s (VBA’s) Adjudication Procedure Manual (M21-1MR) directs that the Veteran should be asked for the approximate dates, location(s), and nature of the alleged herbicide exposure and their detailed description of exposure should be furnished to Compensation Service with a request to review the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) inventory of herbicide operations to determine whether herbicides were used as claimed. If Compensation Service’s review confirms that herbicides were used as alleged, then a determination must be made as to whether service connection is in order. If Compensation Service’s review does not confirm that herbicides were used as alleged, then a request should be sent to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for verification of exposure to herbicides. The Board notes that the July 2015 VA memo reflects that there was insufficient evidence to submit to the joint services records research center (JSRRC) or the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). However, given that the Veteran has provided additional identifying information regarding his service in Korea with respect to his allegation of herbicide exposure, the Board finds a remand for additional development is necessary. 3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities is remanded. Similarly, as the Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for hypertension, erectile dysfunction, and peripheral neuropathy as being proximately due to or aggravated by his diabetes mellitus, type II, including medication, the Board notes that these issues are also inextricably intertwined. Thus, these claims must also be deferred to avoid piecemeal adjudication. See Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337 (1996). Moreover, as the factual record is unclear, the Board defers consideration of the need for additional VA examinations and/or opinions pertaining to the aforementioned issues on appeal at this time. See generally Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011) (discussing the “chicken-or-egg” dilemma faced by VA when requesting opinions and making credibility determinations with an undeveloped record, and recognizing that fact-finding is a responsibility that is ultimately committed to the Board and not a VA medical examiner). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the claims file any outstanding VA and private treatment records. 2. Attempt to verify the Veteran’s asserted in-service exposure to herbicide agents, in accordance with the guidelines laid out in the M21-1MR. 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 in-service herbicide agent exposure. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.L. Reid, Associate Counsel