Citation Nr: 18159136 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/18/18 DOCKET NO. 15-09 590 DATE: December 18, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for dental condition, for substitution purposes, is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for skin cancer, for substitution purposes, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, for substitution purposes, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of left upper extremity, for substitution purposes, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity, for substitution purposes, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of left lower extremity, for substitution purposes, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity, for substitution purposes, is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The evidence does not show that the Veteran had a dental disorder due to trauma or injury during his active service; there is no evidence of any dental condition that resulted from loss of substance of body of the maxilla or mandible. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for dental condition have not been met for purposes of compensation. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 4.150 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1965 to July 1967. He died in June 2018 and is survived by his wife, who is the appellant. In August 2018, his wife submitted a motion for substitution to continue the appeal to completion. In October 2018, the RO granted the appellant’s request for substitution. 38 U.S.C. § 5121A. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newark, New Jersey. 1. Entitlement to service connection for dental condition, for substitution purposes. The Veteran submitted a claim for service connection for a dental condition in November 2011. He did not contend that he had any trauma to the teeth during service. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection requires: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Compensation is only available for certain types of dental and oral conditions, such as impairment of the mandible, loss of a portion of the ramus, and loss of a portion of the maxilla. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. Compensation is available for loss of teeth only if such loss is due to loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible during service due to in-service trauma or disease such as osteomyelitis, and not to the loss of the alveolar process as a result of periodontal disease. 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Code 9913 (Note). Treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease cannot be service connected for purposes of compensation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381. The service treatment records do not show, and the Veteran does not allege, any trauma to the teeth. Thus, service connection for a dental condition involving service trauma may not be granted. Furthermore, the record does not demonstrate the existence of a current dental condition for which service connection might be granted. As such, the claim seeking compensation for a dental condition is precluded by the regulation and must therefore be denied as a matter of law. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). Moreover, treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease will be considered service-connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment, which is no longer relevant in this case. REASONS FOR REMAND 2. Entitlement to service connection for skin cancer, for substitution purposes, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, for substitution purposes, is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of left upper extremity, for substitution purposes, is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity, for substitution purposes, is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of left lower extremity, for substitution purposes, is remanded. 7. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity, for substitution purposes, is remanded. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for skin cancer, diabetes mellitus, type II, and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities associated with diabetes based on Agent Orange exposure while serving in Thailand. Service personnel records show that the Veteran served with the 596th Quartermasters Company as a Petroleum Storage Specialist in Sattahip, Thailand from June 1966 to July 1967. However, in February 2015 Congressional correspondence, the Veteran reported that, although stationed in Sattahip from 1966 to 1967, he performed duties at both U-Tapao and Korat, building military bases and he came in contact with herbicides that was used to defoliate a jungle. VA has established a procedure for verifying exposure to herbicides in Thailand during the Vietnam Era. VA has determined that there was significant use of herbicides on the fenced-in perimeters of military bases in Thailand for the purpose of eliminating vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes as evidenced in a declassified Vietnam era Department of Defense document titled, ‘Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report: Base Defense in Thailand.’ Special consideration of herbicide exposure on a facts-found or direct basis should be extended to those Veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. This allows for presumptive service connection of the diseases associated with herbicide exposure. VA regulations directs that a detailed statement of the Veteran’s claimed herbicide exposure be sent to the Compensation and Pension Service via e-mail and a review be requested of the inventory of herbicide operations maintained by the Department of Defense (DOD) to determine whether herbicides were used or tested as alleged. If the exposure is not verified, a request should then be sent to the Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for verification. Although the Veteran provided statements as to the approximate date, location and nature of the alleged exposure of herbicides, there is no indication in the record that there has been an attempt to verify alleged Agent Orange exposure while performing duties at the U-Tapao and Korat Air Force Base, with the JSRRC. The Board observes that the Veteran’s relevant unit records for his period of service in Thailand from June 1966 to July 1967 have also not been obtained. As the Veteran has specifically alleged exposure to herbicides at the U-Tapao and Korat Royal Thai Air Force Bases in Thailand, the Board finds that an attempt should be made to verify the Veteran’s alleged Agent Orange exposure through the JSRRC. The Board also notes that there is no indication that the Veteran’s entire Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), to include his Special Orders, has been requested in an attempt to verify the actual dates that the Veteran served at the U-Tapao and Korat Royal Thai Air Force Bases in Thailand. VA is required to make reasonable efforts to help a claimant obtain records relevant to his claim, whether or not the records are in Federal custody. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1). In Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that VA has constructive notice of VA generated documents that could reasonably be expected to be part of the record, and that such documents are thus constructively part of the record before the Secretary and the Board, even where they are not actually before the adjudicating body. Accordingly, an attempt should be made to obtain the Veteran’s entire OMPF. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), or any other appropriate service department offices, to obtain the Veteran’s entire Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), including all records of his assignments, whether permanent or temporary duty stations; all travel orders; pay stubs that reflect special pay status, travel vouchers, dislocation allowance and all TDY orders. It is specifically noted that the Veteran reports that he worked at the U-Tapao and Korat Royal Thai Air Force Bases in Thailand during the period from June 1966 to July 1967. Perform all follow-up indicated, document negative responses, and refer to the service department for assistance where necessary. Notify the appellant of the results of the records requests. If, after all procedurally appropriate actions to locate and secure the said records have been made and it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain them would be futile, make a formal finding to that effect. When records are not received from any source, follow the notification procedures of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). The appellant and her representative must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Comply with the evidentiary development in accordance with VA policies. Specifically, request that JSRRC, or other official source, investigate and attempt to verify the Veteran’s reports of alleged exposure to Agent Orange while working at the U-Tapao and Korat Royal Thai Air Force Bases in Thailand, during the period from June 1966 to July 1967. JSRRC must also be asked to provide the histories of the Veteran’s unit(s) during the time he served at those facilities in Thailand. If more detailed information is needed for this research, the appellant should be given an opportunity to provide it. 3. After completing the above, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, provide an additional supplemental statement of the case to the appellant, and return the appeal to the Board for appellate review, after the appellant and her representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond. L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. J. In, Counsel