Citation Nr: 20005149 Decision Date: 01/22/20 Archive Date: 01/22/20 DOCKET NO. 14-12 760 DATE: January 22, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for colon cancer is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of death of the Veteran is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1961 to November 1983. He received multiple awards including the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm and the Vietnam Service Medal with three Bronze Service Stars. Sadly, the Veteran passed away in April 2012; his surviving spouse has been substituted as the appellant. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Addressing the relevant procedural history, this claim was previously before the Board in March 2016. At that time, the claim was remanded for additional development, to specifically include obtaining the Veteran’s military personnel records. 1. Entitlement to service connection for colon cancer is remanded. In this case, the appellant contends that the Veteran’s colon cancer was caused by the Veteran’s active duty service, to include his alleged exposure to herbicide agents such as Agent Orange. Further, both the Veteran prior to his death and the appellant have explicitly requested development of this alleged exposure. The Veteran alleged that he went on, “temporary duty assignments to Clark AFB, Philippines and to Saigon during that time frame” and that he was “in areas that were being sprayed”. See March 2012 Statement in Support of the Claim. His awards included the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. The Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, and the Vietnam Service Medal with three bronze service stars. The Board notes, however that such awards do not definitely establish that a Veteran was actually in Vietnam as opposed to other locations such as Thailand. The Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) was electronic communications and cryptographic equipment systems technician. His military personnel records confirm service in Thailand (from September 28, 1967 to September 20, 1968) at Nakhon Phatom RTAFB and indicate that he was, “[r]esponsible for supervision of all Preventive Maintenance, Trouble Analysis and Correction, Maintenance Documentation under AFCSM 66-1, Research and Ordering of Parts and Cryptographic Familiarization for the Base Communications Center and TSEC/KW-26, TSEC/KG-13, TSEC/KW-7, TSEC/KY-9 with additional duty of Tempest NCO”. However, it is unclear whether, as alleged, the Veteran was in areas in which herbicide agents were utilized. In this case, the Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of the Veteran’s colon cancer until further development occurs that will enable the Board to determine whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his active duty service. This may include contacting the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) and any other entity deemed necessary. The appellant has also referenced literature, through her attorney, that she asserts indicates that the Veteran could have been exposed to herbicide agents while repairing or working on equipment at the guard shacks or on aircraft on the runway, or as a result of the proximity of the barracks to the perimeter. This contention should be investigated. 2. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of death of the Veteran is remanded. The Board’s directive regarding the appellant’s colon cancer claim that is being remanded could potentially have an impact regarding the cause of death issue; therefore, the issue of cause of death is inexplicably intertwined with the issues being remanded and adjudication of cause of death must be deferred pending the proposed development. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (the adjudication of claims that are inextricably intertwined is based upon the recognition that claims related to each other should not be subject to piecemeal decision-making or appellate litigation). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Send a request to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), and any other entity deemed necessary, for verification of the appellant’s statements regarding the Veteran’s claimed exposure to herbicide agents, to include his documented service in Thailand. The JSRRC should specifically address the Veteran’s claims of temporary duty assignments to Clark AFB, Philippines and to Saigon during that time frame, as well as the appellant’s assertion that the Veteran could have been exposed to herbicide agents while repairing or working on equipment at the guard shacks or on aircraft on the runway, or as a result of the proximity of the barracks to the perimeter. 2. Following the completion of step one, make a formal finding as to whether in-service herbicide agent exposure is shown. 3. Following completion of steps one and two, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician. The entire claims file, including a complete copy of this remand, should be made available to and be reviewed by the clinician, and it should be confirmed that such records were available for review. After reviewing the record, including lay evidence submitted by the appellant and the Veteran, the clinician should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s colon cancer was caused by or related to his active service? (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s colon cancer was manifested within one year of his separation from active service. (b.) If the formal finding generated on remand indicates that in-service herbicide agent exposure is shown, the clinician is additionally asked to opine: Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s colon cancer is related to in-service exposure to herbicide agents. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions. This rationale cannot be solely predicated on the absence of in-service evidence or length of time between service and diagnosis, but must consider the broader evidentiary picture, including lay evidence. 4. Thereafter, readjudicate the claims. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, issue a SSOC to the Veteran and his representative. Then return the appeal to the Board for further appellate review. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Smith, 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.