Citation Nr: 20005657 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/23/20 DOCKET NO. 17-50 069 DATE: January 23, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) based on service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death, to include, as due to possible environmental exposures in Southwest Asia, is remanded. Entitlement to DIC pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1318, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from July 23, 1954 to June 11, 1958 and August 18, 1958 to September 27, 1974. The Veteran died in January 2016. See Death Certificate. The immediate cause of death was cardiac arrest. Id. The underlying causes of death were coronary artery disease (CAD) and hypertension. Id. At the time of his death, the Veteran was service-connected for bilateral hearing loss, peptic ulcer disease, right prepatellar pad syndrome, and a right distal ulna scar with slight weakness of adductor pollicis. See May 2012 Rating Decision-Code Sheet. The appellant is his surviving spouse. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2016 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to DIC based on service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death, to include, as due to possible environmental exposures in Southwest Asia, is remanded. The appellant contends that her husband had cancer, which was diagnosed in 1978. See December 2016 Correspondence. She further asserts that he was treated by a VA medical center (VAMC) in Charleston, South Carolina, in the years 1978 and 1980. Id. She asserts that these records are missing from the file and that they would help further substantiate her DIC claim. Id. The appellant, through her representative, contends that there are no personnel records in the Veteran’s file, and these missing files would be useful in further substantiating the appellant’s DIC claim. See October 2019 Appellate Brief. The appellant goes on to state that the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) reveal that he served on several vessels, to include, the USS Princeton (CV-37) and the USS Grant (SSBV-631), with the USS Princeton seeing service in both the Korean and Vietnam War. Id. The appellant asserts that this information is vital, as it might allow the Veteran to be eligible for legal presumptions regarding herbicide exposure and the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veteran’s Act of 2019. Id. The Board acknowledges a Stay pertaining to cases involving the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veteran’s Act of 2019, but the appellant is not claiming any of the presumptive diseases under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309, so the Board will proceed. The appellant states that favorable findings on these matters would allow her to be eligible for benefits. Id. The appellant asserts that due to the Veteran’s work on submarines, he may have been exposed to asbestos as well. Id. The appellant also alleges that STRs reveal normal as well as pre-hypertensive levels, which is likely to be connected to his active military service. Id. After having obtained all of the requested information, the appellant requests a medical opinion addressing the pre-hypertension, cardiac conditions, connections to his chronic peptic ulcer disease and exposure to asbestos for service connection for DIC benefits. Id. Remand is necessary to address these matters. 2. Entitlement to DIC pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1318, is remanded. The issue of entitlement to DIC pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1318 is raised by both the appellant and the representative. See December 2016 NOD; September 2017 VA Form 9; October 2019 Appellate Brief. However, the Board would like to acknowledge, that unless specifically limited by a claimant, the Board is required to consider all theories of entitlement to DIC benefits. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.152(a), (b)(1) (2017). As such, a generic claim for DIC benefits encompasses all three theories of entitlement listed above. See, e.g., Stoner v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 488, 491 (1993). The Veteran was assigned a 100 percent rating for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss in a May 2006 rating decision. However, as the RO has not yet considered this issue, remand is necessary for issuance of a Statement of the Case (SOC). See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Issue an SOC that adjudicates the theory of entitlement to DIC pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1318. 2. Obtain the Veteran's complete VA treatment records, to include records from Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, for the time periods of 1978 and 1980, and associate them with the claims file. 3. Please obtain all military personnel records and associate them with the claims file. 4. Then arrange for the Veteran’s records to be reviewed by an examiner for preparation of a medical opinion. The medical provider should respond to the following: (a) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hypertension had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service, to include as a result of (1) possibly noted elevated blood pressure readings during service; and/or (2) exposure to herbicide agents therein, if verified, including the 2018 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) findings of “sufficient evidence of an association” between herbicide agent exposure and hypertension. In addressing this question, please consider the Veteran sound at service entry with respect to his blood pressure, and if herbicide agent exposure is verified, please note that the fact that a given disorder is not one for which service connection can be presumptively awarded cannot be used as the sole basis for a negative opinion. (b) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s coronary artery disease (CAD) had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service. In addressing this question, please consider the Veteran sound at service entry with respect to his arterial issues, and if herbicide agent exposure is verified, please note that the fact that a given disorder is not one for which service connection can be presumptively awarded cannot be used as the sole basis for a negative opinion. (c) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s chronic peptic ulcer disease: (1) singly or jointly with some other condition, was the immediate or underlying cause of death or was etiologically related thereto; (2) contributed substantially or materially to the Veteran’s death; (3) combined with another disorder to cause death; and/or (4) aided or lent assistance to his death. In rendering this opinion, please specifically address the effects of his chronic peptic ulcer disease on a vital organ, and whether the service-connected chronic peptic ulcer disease had debilitating effects and general impairment of health that would render the Veteran less capable of resisting the effects of other disease or injury primarily causing death. T.D. JONES Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. J. Rogers, 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.