Citation Nr: 20005529 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/22/20 DOCKET NO. 14-31 340 DATE: January 23, 2020 REMANDED The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for reversible airway disorder, to include as due to herbicide and/or asbestos exposure, is remanded. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity (claimed as left leg blood clot), to include as due to herbicide and/or asbestos exposure, is remanded. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to a total disability evaluation based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Navy from January 1969 to May 1971. His service was under honorable conditions. These matters are on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision. The Veteran passed away in February 2017. The Veteran’s spouse filed an Application for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation and requested substitution in the instant appeal. The RO granted substitution in January 2018. In his August 2014 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a Travel Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. In a December 2019 statement, the appellant requested adjudication of her claim without a hearing. As such, the Board may proceed to adjudicate this claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e) (2019). 1. Entitlement to service connection for reversible airway disorder, to include as due to herbicide and/or asbestos exposure. See argument Below at 2 2. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity, to include as due to herbicide and/or asbestos exposure. On review of the record, the Board has found that further development is needed for VA to fulfill its duties mandated under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) with respect to the claims on appeal. Prior to his death, the Veteran consistently stated that his current respiratory and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy disorders were caused by exposure to asbestos, while serving aboard the USS Okinawa LPH-3 during active service, as a result of performing maintenance onboard the Ship. Regarding the theory of asbestos exposure, the Board notes that VA has not yet undertaken any development to verify asbestos exposure during the Veteran's service, to include while serving aboard the USS Okinawa LPH-3. On remand, after obtaining all pertinent ship logs for the USS Okinawa LPH-3, the AOJ should attempt to verify, through all official sources, any exposure of the Veteran to asbestos in service. 3. Entitlement to a TDIU. Finally, since the Veteran’s claim for service connection and his claim of entitlement to a TDIU, relies in part on his disability ratings, these issues cannot be addressed until the above development has been completed. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are “inextricably intertwined” when they are so closely ties together that a final Board decision cannot be rendered unless both are adjudicated). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The AOJ should request all pertinent ship logs for the USS Okinawa LPH-3. All requests for records and their responses must be associated with the record. If any records requested are unavailable, the reason must be explained for the record, and the appellant must be so notified. 2. Thereafter, the AOJ should take all necessary steps to verify, THROUGH OFFICIAL SOURCES, any in-service exposure of the Veteran to Asbestos while serving aboard the USS Dixie Okinawa LPH-3 during his active service aboard the Ship, from August 18, 1969, to March 1, 1971. 3. The AOJ should then review the record, ensure that all development is completed (AND arrange for any further development suggested by additional evidence received). 4. Then, the AOJ should readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, he and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period for response before the case is returned to the Board for further appellate action. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Sara Schinnerer, 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.