Citation Nr: 20003679 Decision Date: 01/16/20 Archive Date: 01/15/20 DOCKET NO. 18-49 512 DATE: January 16, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from August 1968 to August 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran asserts that his current Parkinson’s disease is directly related to in-service exposure to herbicide agents during his service at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) from May 1970 to May 1971. The Board takes judicial notice of a declassified report entitled “Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report: Base Defense in Thailand,” that shows that there was significant use of herbicide agents on the fenced-in perimeters of military bases in Thailand intended to eliminate vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes. Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 103 (2012) (allowing for taking of judicial notice of facts of universal notoriety that are not subject to reasonable dispute); Smith (Brady) v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 235, 238 (1991) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)). The Board finds the Veteran’s assertions of regular visits to areas near the base perimeter to work at the base theater and watch movies credible and consistent with the circumstances of his service. Thus, his exposure to herbicide agents in service is conceded. Here, there is no confirmed diagnosis of record of “Parkinson’s disease,” which is presumptively related to in-service herbicide agent exposure. An October 2018 letter from an environmental health clinician indicates that the Veteran recently presented for an Agent Orange Health Registry evaluation and the results show Parkinson’s disease. However, that report is not of record must be secured on remand. Additionally, there are unconfirmed rule-out diagnoses in the medical record, which suggest the need for further testing, but which do not indicate whether such testing was ever conducted. See July 2017 private treatment record. On remand, any outstanding records diagnosing Parkinson’s disease should be secured, and if no such records are available, a VA examination scheduled. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records, to include the results of the October 2018 VA Agent Orange Registry examination. 2. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, obtain all outstanding private treatment records, to include from Kaiser Permanente. If any records are unavailable, notify the Veteran pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 3. If and only if a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease is not established in any records obtained pursuant to items (1) and (2) above, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any central nervous system disorder. The claims file should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner and all necessary tests should be performed. All findings should be reported in detail. The examiner should address the following: a) Explicitly rule in or exclude a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease. See July 2017 private treatment records; August 2018 VA Environmental Health Registry Program letter. b) If a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease is not warranted, for any central nervous disorder manifested by softer voice with time, left arm cogwheeling, decreased armswing with ambulation, reduction in facial expression, and gait difficulties identified, please opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that such disorder is etiologically related to the Veteran’s service, to include as a result of conceded herbicide agent (Agent Orange) exposure therein. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed. S. BUSH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Forde, 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.