Citation Nr: 18123773 Decision Date: 08/03/18 Archive Date: 08/02/18 DOCKET NO. 15-28 666 DATE: August 3, 2018 ORDER The application to reopen the claim for service connection for right shoulder degenerative joint disease is granted. To this extent only, the appeal is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder degenerative joint disease is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has provided new and material evidence of a nexus between his right shoulder degenerative joint disease and his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW New and material evidence having been submitted, the service connection claim for right shoulder degenerative joint disease is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from March 1977 to October 1984 and from March 1990 to September 1992. He received the Army Good Conduct Medal; Army Service Ribbon; Overseas Service Ribbon; NCO Professional Development Ribbon; Marksman Badge; Air Assault Badge; Army Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster; Army Achievement Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Sharpshooter Badge; Southwest Asia Service Medal with three bronze service stars; and, Kuwait Liberation Medal. The Veteran’s claim for service connection for right shoulder degenerative joint disease was previously denied in an unappealed rating decision in February 2004. The Regional Office determined that the evidence did not demonstrate an undiagnosed illness related to the Veteran’s service in Southwest Asia. Since that final decision, the Board finds that the Veteran has submitted new and material evidence. Specifically, the Veteran has claimed that his right shoulder degenerative joint disease is the result of his work as a mechanic while in service. See November 2015 VA 646 Statement of Accredited Representative, p. 2. The Board finds that the newly submitted evidence reasonably raises the possibility that the Veteran’s right shoulder degenerative joint disease was caused by his service, and the Board will reopen the claim. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 118 (2010); see also Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (noting that new evidence could be sufficient to reopen a claim if it could contribute to a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the origin of a claimant’s injury or disability, even where it would not be enough to convince the Board to grant the claim). REASONS FOR REMAND Right Shoulder Degenerative Joint Disease The Veteran contends that his right shoulder degenerative joint disease is the result of his work as a mechanic. There is no opinion of record that addresses whether the Veteran’s right shoulder degenerative joint disease is etiologically related to his work as a mechanic. Further, the opinion of record does not address the Veteran’s right shoulder crepitus documented at separation. March 2014 STR, p. 9. On remand, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction should obtain an opinion that addresses whether the Veteran’s disability is related to the Veteran’s work as a mechanic or any of his documented in-service complaints. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a VA opinion that addresses the etiology of the Veteran’s right shoulder degenerative joint disease. If deemed necessary by the examiner, schedule the Veteran for an examination. All indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished. The entire claims file, to include a complete copy of this REMAND, should be made available to the examiner designated to provide an opinion, and the examination report should include a discussion of the Veteran’s documented medical history and assertions. The examiner should offer comments, an opinion and a supporting rationale that addresses whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s right shoulder degenerative joint disease is etiologically related to his active duty service. In providing this opinion, the examiner must address the Veteran’s in-service shoulder complaints as well as his contentions regarding his work as a mechanic. See November 2015 VA 646 Statement of Accredited Representative, p. 2; March 2014 STRs, p. 9; March 2014 STRs, p. 10. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be considered. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD W.V. Walker, Associate Counsel