Citation Nr: 20021347 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 18-18 429 DATE: March 25, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from February 1989 to January 2000, from January 2006 to May 2006, from December 2006 to August 2007, from October 2007 to July 2008, and from December 2009 to March 2010. She also had service in the United States Air Force Reserve. Her decorations include the Southwest Asia Service Medal with three service stars. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois. This case was previously before the Board in June 2019, when it was remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. After taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denial and returned the case to the Board. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim and to afford her every possible consideration. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. As noted above, the Board remanded the issue on appeal in June 2019. In November 2019, the AOJ obtained an examination with respect to diabetes mellitus. The examiner opined, among other things, that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus was incurred in or caused by active service, to include in-service gestational diabetes or weight changes. The Board finds the November 2019 opinion insufficient to decide the claim because the examiner relied, in part, on an inaccurate factual predicate. Specifically, the examiner noted that after separation in 2008, the Veteran gained 15 pounds. She also noted that the Veteran was diagnosed with impaired fasting glucose in February 2010, two years after separation. However, the Veteran’s DD Forms 214 indicate that she had a period of active service from December 2009 to March 2010. A remand is necessary to obtain an addendum opinion that takes the correct duty dates into account. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007); see also Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. After the foregoing development has been completed to the extent possible, obtain an addendum opinion from the November 2019 VA examiner as to the etiology of the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus. After reviewing the record, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether it is 50 percent or more probable) that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus had its onset in, or is otherwise attributable to, her period of active service, to include impaired fasting glucose or changes in weight. In so doing, the examiner should discuss the medical significance, if any, of the fact that the Veteran had a period of active duty from December 2009 to March 2010, wherein impaired fasting glucose, elevated hemoglobin A1c, and the need to lose weight was noted. See e.g. March 2010 Patient Lab Inquiry. A complete medical rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and her representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Kettler, 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.