Citation Nr: 20002969 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/14/20 DOCKET NO. 15-18 409A DATE: January 14, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for lung damage, claimed as asbestosis and possible respiratory malignancy, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had verified active service from September 1977 to August 1983 and from November 1987 to October 1998. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2012 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for lung damage, claimed as asbestosis and possible malignancy is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for lung damage which he believes resulted from exposure to asbestos during his service on Navy ships. It appears that the RO has fully completed development to determine whether the Veteran had asbestos exposure during service as asserted. On remand, the RO should determine whether his military records demonstrate evidence of asbestos exposure during service on any of the ships upon which he served, to include as a result of his military occupational specialty. Personnel records reflect that he served aboard the USS Saipan (LHA-2) from September 1993 to December 1993. Personnel records also reflect service aboard other vessels, including the USS Fort Snelling from October 1983 to February 1984; the USS Independence from September 1984 to March 1985 and from May 1985 to September 1986 and more. However, at present, the verified active duty dates are as shown above. It appears that the Veteran may have had additional active service as his DD Form 214 shows immediate re-enlistment in August 1983 and reflect a total of 10 years of active service, and his personnel records reflect active service after August 1983. On remand, the RO should verify all periods of active duty. Further, the Board notes that the Veteran did not respond to the RO’s August 2012 letter regarding had pre-service and/or post-service asbestos exposure. He should be provided another opportunity to do so, to include identifying the specific ships upon which he served. Finally, the Veteran’s post-service treatment records indicate a nodule in the right lung, as well as a few other nodules that may be a basis for a granulomatous disease. However, the Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of a lung disability because no VA examiner has opined whether such condition is a disability and whether such is related to service, to include any reported asbestos exposure. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to verify any additional periods of active duty service between August 1983 and November 1987. 2. Then, take appropriate action to determine whether the Veteran was exposed to asbestos during any active duty Navy service. Negative replies should be requested. If the search for these records yields negative results, this should be noted in the claims folder, and action should be taken in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e). 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any lung disability. The examiner should review the claim file and conduct any necessary tests. a) The examiner is to clearly identify all current lung disorders. In doing so, the examiner is asked to indicate whether the right lung nodule represents an actual current disability. b) The examiner must opine whether any current lung disorder is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including, if shown by the above development, exposure to asbestos on Navy ships during active service. A fully-explained rationale for all opinions must be provided. If any of the requested opinions cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner should clearly explain why that is so. D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Lauritzen, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.