Citation Nr: 20007527 Decision Date: 01/29/20 Archive Date: 01/29/20 DOCKET NO. 16-02 067 DATE: January 29, 2020 ORDER The application to reopen a claim for service connection for a cardiovascular disorder is granted. REMANDED Service connection for a cardiovascular disorder. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from April 1968 to February 1971. 2. In January 2013, the RO denied service connection for a cardiovascular disorder on the basis that there was no evidence that the Veteran served at the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ); the evidence submitted since January 2013 relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of service connection for a cardiovascular disorder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The January 2013 rating decision, which denied service connection for a cardiovascular disorder, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2019). 2. The evidence received since the January 2013 rating decision is new and material; the claim of service connection for a cardiovascular disorder is reopened. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.307, 3.309 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS In connection with this appeal, the Veteran testified at a June 2019 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. Prior unappealed rating decisions may not be reopened absent the submission of new and material evidence warranting revision of the previous decision. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. “New” evidence means evidence “not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers.” “Material” evidence means “evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, related to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The Veteran was initially denied service connection for a cardiovascular disorder in a January 2013 rating decision on the basis that the evidence of record did not demonstrate that the Veteran served in the Korean DMZ. The evidence of record at the time of the January 2013 rating decision consisted of service treatment records (STRs) and post-service medical treatment records. At the time of the decision, the RO did not find evidence demonstrating that the Veteran served in the DMZ. He did not appeal that decision and the January 2013 rating decision became final. The evidence received since the January 2013 rating decision includes a May 2015 lay statement from the Veteran explaining that he served at Camp Page, Korea from November 1968 to November 1969 near the DMZ and that he made many trips to the DMZ. The record also includes VA and private treatment records, buddy statements, military personnel records, articles discussing the use of herbicide in the DMZ in Korea, and his June 2019 testimony describing his temporary duty assignment (TDY) to the DMZ while stationed at Camp Page. The evidence is new as it was not of record prior to the January 2013 rating decision. Moreover, the evidence is material as it relates to the Veteran’s exposure to herbicide while he was stationed in Korea. Accordingly, the newly-added evidence relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. As such, the application is granted, the claim is reopened, and the appeal is granted to this extent. REASON FOR REMAND In multiple statements and testimony, the Veteran asserted that his cardiovascular disorder was caused by in-service herbicide exposure while he served in Korea. He stated that he completed many trips to the Korean DMZ on a TDY basis while he was stationed at Camp Page with the 161th Engineer Company, 4th United States Army Missile Command (USAMICOM). His military personnel records showed that he served in the U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) and in Korea from November 1968 to November 1969 and that he was assigned to Camp Page during that time. His military occupational specialty (MOS) was combat engineer. In January 2013, a Personnel Information Exchange System (PIES) response indicated that there was no record of the Veteran having served in Vietnam or exposure to herbicide. Initially, the January 2013 PIES response reviewed records for evidence of the Veteran serving in Vietnam, but did not review any records or unit history records to determine whether the Veteran’s unit operated in or near the Korean DMZ. Accordingly, a remand is required to submit a request for Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) to review the unit history records for the period from November 1968 to November 1969. Also, additional development is warranted to verify whether the Veteran’s reports of traveling to the Korean DMZ on TDY at Camp Casey while he was stationed at Camp Page are consistent with his military occupational specialty. Additionally, the Veteran’s military personnel records and all current treatment records, should be identified and obtained before a decision is made with regard to the current issue on appeal. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records not already of record in the claims file. 2. Obtain the Veteran’s service personnel records from the appropriate sources, to include his record of assignments. 3. Contact the JSRRC and request verification of the Veteran’s reported service in or near the Korean DMZ for the period from November 1968 to November 1969. The JSRRC should attempt to verify whether his reports of traveling to the Korean DMZ on TDY while stationed at Camp Page are consistent with his military occupational specialties as a combat engineer or his unit of assignment. 4. If the Veteran’s travel to the Korean DMZ is consistent with his military occupational specialty or unit of assigment, the JSRRC should also determine whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicides when visiting those bases. 5. If herbicide exposure is conceded, readjudicate the claim for a cardiovascular disorder on the merits. L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Grzeczkowicz 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.