Citation Nr: 20005609 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/23/20 DOCKET NO. 16-13 774 DATE: January 23, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for cause of death is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1967 to January 1971. He passed away in May 2013. The appellant is his surviving spouse. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In August 2016, the appellant testified at a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) no longer at the Board; a transcript of that hearing is of record. In September 2019, the appellant was offered the opportunity to testify at a hearing before another VLJ. See 38 U.S.C. § 7107(c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.707. Because the appellant responded that she did not wish to appear at another Board hearing, see September 2019 correspondence, the Board will proceed with adjudication. The Board notes that the appellant withdrew her appeal of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability on an accrued benefits basis in January 2014 correspondence. Thus, remand pursuant to Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999) is inappropriate. In her April 2016 substantive appeal (VA Form 9), the appellant attempted to appeal issues that are not before the Board related to disabilities such as gastrointestinal disabilities, eye disabilities, and lung disabilities. The Board only has jurisdiction over the issue of entitlement to service connection for cause of death. Thus, no further action is taken. Entitlement to service connection for cause of death is remanded. The Veteran’s death certificate reflects that his causes of death included coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus type II. His military personnel records reflect he was stationed aboard the USS Independence from approximately July 1, 1969 to January 2, 1971. The evidence is incomplete as to whether the Veteran’s service aboard the USS Independence included service offshore of Vietnam in the territorial waters, not more than 12 nautical miles. See Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-23, 133 Stat. 966; see also Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Thus, remand is necessary to obtain such information. In its October 2018 remand, the Board requested a medical opinion because the appellant testified that the Veteran had informed her of his diagnosis of atrial fibrillation shortly after he separated from service. It is the appellant’s contention that the Veteran’s atrial fibrillation developed in service or shortly thereafter and contributed to the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. A July 2019 VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s atrial fibrillation had its onset during service but did not discuss the appellant’s testimony. See July 2019 medical opinion. As a result, the opinion is inadequate, and an addendum is necessary. Lastly, the record reflects that the Veteran may have applied for Social Security Administration (SSA) disability. Because the Veteran’s SSA records may reasonably contain information relating to the Veteran’s issues on appeal, remand is required to obtain his SSA records. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should request directly from the SSA all records, including medical records, regarding any claim for disability benefits. All attempts to fulfill this development should be documented in the claim file. If the records are unavailable, it should so be noted on the record and the reason for unavailability should be provided. 2. The AOJ should submit a request to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) or other appropriate source for any information that might corroborate service in the offshore or territorial waters of Vietnam. Specifically: (a.) Confirm the Veteran’s service dates aboard the USS Independence from July 1, 1969 to January 2, 1971; and (b.) Determine whether the USS Independence was in the territorial or offshore waters (12 nautical miles) of Vietnam while the Veteran was stationed aboard the ship. Successive requests must be made to JSRRC or other source until the entire relevant time period has been considered. If the JSRRC responds that it is unable to comply with the request, the AOJ should produce a formal memorandum for the file documenting efforts to obtain this information. 3. After the development in the first instruction is completed, the AOJ should arrange for an addendum opinion from the July 2019 VA examiner, if possible. Specially, the examiner should consider and discuss the appellant’s testimony that the Veteran informed her of his diagnosis of atrial fibrillation shortly after he separated from service. If the July 2019 VA examiner is not available, an opinion should be obtained from a new medical professional. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion with detailed rationale that responds to the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s atrial fibrillation had onset during service or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s service? Please explain why. The examiner must discuss the appellants testimony that the Veteran informed her of his diagnosis of atrial fibrillation shortly after he separated from service. (b.) If atrial fibrillation had its onset during service or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s service, the examiner must opine whether it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any cause of the Veteran’s death (coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, and hypertension) was proximately due to or aggravated by atrial fibrillation? The opinion must address whether the disability increased in severity beyond its natural progression (i.e., was aggravated). If aggravation is found, please identify to the extent possible the baseline level of disability prior to the aggravation. 4. If upon completion of the above action the issue remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Sandler, 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.