Citation Nr: 20021141 Decision Date: 03/24/20 Archive Date: 03/24/20 DOCKET NO. 13-23 341 DATE: March 24, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The Veteran had active military service from February 1967 to February 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the November 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. This matter was previously before the Board in August 2017 and the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes was denied. The Veteran appealed this decision to the Court of Veterans Appeals (Court). In September 2019, the Court issued a joint motion for remand. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. The Veteran contends that his diabetes is related to his military service. Specifically, the Veteran alleges that he was exposed to herbicides during his military service and that this exposure resulted in his diabetes mellitus. The Veteran contends that he was exposed to herbicide agents during service at Travis Air Force Base in California from April 1967 to December 1968 and while on temporary duty at Anderson Air Force Base in Guam in November 1967. The Veteran has stated that he offloaded 55 gallon drums of herbicides upon their return from Vietnam. Additionally, the Veteran stated that the chemicals inside the drums were released into the aircrafts as the drums were not properly sealed. In June 2015, the Board remanded this matter to attempt to verify any exposure to herbicides in both of the locations the Veteran alleged he was exposed at. Subsequently, in August 2017, this matter was returned to the Board and was denied on the merits. However, as discussed above, in September 2019, the Court found that the August 2017 Board decision erred in finding that the duty to assist had been satisfied via not completing all ordered development from the June 2015 remand. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c); see also Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 168, 171 (1998). Specifically, the Court found that the record does not contain evidence that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) attempted to verify the Veteran’s claimed exposure in Guam and only contains documentation regarding his allegations regarding herbicide exposure at Travis Air Force Base in California. Therefore, pursuant to the Court’s joint motion for remand, the Board finds that a remand is warranted for attempts to be made to verify any herbicide exposure the Veteran may have experienced in Guam. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to verify the Veteran’s asserted in-service exposure to herbicide agents, specifically during his temporary duty assignment at Anderson Air Force Base in Guam in November 1967. If more details are needed, contact the Veteran to request the information. If there is still insufficient information to verify exposure to herbicide agents, issue a Formal Finding outlining the steps taken to assist the Veteran and notify the Veteran of VA’s inability to verify the in-service herbicide agent exposure. Additionally, the AOJ must obtain the DoD Inventory, request information from VA’s Agent Orange email box, and request verification from the JSRRC in accordance with the Court’s remand. 2. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mountford, 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.