Citation Nr: 20006341 Decision Date: 01/27/20 Archive Date: 01/24/20 DOCKET NO. 16-44 626 DATE: January 27, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 2007 to August 2011, with service in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is the recipient of numerous awards and decorations, to include the Combat Action Ribbon and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with Combat Distinguishing Device. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in September 2012 by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In July 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. At such time, he waived Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) of the evidence associated with the record since the issuance of the July 2016 statement of the case. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c). Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis. The Veteran is seeking service connection for allergic rhinitis on the premise that such disorder manifested in approximately January 2011, during one of his deployments to Afghanistan. He posits that his nine-month residence in a mud hut, manufactured from substances including manure and hay, and his regular exposure to burn pits, in which human waste and other substances were burned, during his deployment resulted in his development of a post-nasal drip, which he reports was the initial manifestation of his currently diagnosed allergic rhinitis. He further reports that he was treated for his post-nasal drip during his deployment with non-prescription antihistamines by the medical corpsman stationed with him. Given the informal nature of this treatment, coupled with the fact that he and his fellow service members were engaged in a combat mission, this in-service treatment was not documented. However, within three months of his separation from service, the Veteran received treatment for complaints of post-nasal drip and congestion, which resulted in a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis as reflected in a November 2011 VA treatment record. Further, while the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in September 2012, at which time the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis was confirmed, the examiner did not offer an etiological opinion. Consequently, in light of the Veteran’s reported in-service symptoms, the nature of his combat service in Afghanistan, and his current diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, the Board finds that a remand is necessary in order to obtain an opinion addressing the etiology of his allergic rhinitis. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Further, as the Veteran receives ongoing VA treatment for his allergic rhinitis, and as he testified that one of his treatment providers linked such disorder to his military service, updated VA treatment records dated from March 2019 to the present should be obtained for consideration in his appeal. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records dated from March 2019 to the present. 2. Forward the record to an appropriate medical professional so as to obtain an opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis. The record and a copy of this Remand must be made available to the examiner. The need for an additional examination of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the clinician selected to write the addendum opinion. Following a review of the record, the examiner is to opine whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s currently-diagnosed allergic rhinitis had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, his military service, to include as a result of his exposure to mud huts and burn pits while deployed in Afghanistan. When rendering this opinion, the examiner is asked to consider and comment on the following evidence: • The Veteran’s report that his post-nasal drip began in approximately January 2011, when he was deployed to Afghanistan and had been living in a mud hut (comprised of substances including manure and hay) and had been regularly exposed to burn pits • The Veteran’s report that the medical corpsman stationed with him administered non-prescription antihistamines to treat his post-nasal drip, but that this treatment was not documented due to its informal nature and the fact that the treatment was administered during a combat mission • The Veteran complained of post-nasal drip and congestion, which resulted in a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, in November 2011, within three months of his separation from service in August 2011, and has received continuous treatment thereafter. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Northcutt, 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.