Citation Nr: 20021694 Decision Date: 03/26/20 Archive Date: 03/26/20 DOCKET NO. 19-06 764 DATE: March 26, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for irritable bowel syndrome is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for tinea pedis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for dementia to include cognitive losses and blackouts is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for chronic sinusitis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for respiratory ailment/breathing problems is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for periodontal condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to compensation for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from January 1981 to May 1993. He also had Reserve service. 1. Entitlement to service connection for irritable bowel syndrome is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a compensable rating for tinea pedis is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for TBI is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for dementia to include cognitive losses and blackouts is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for chronic sinusitis is remanded. 7. Entitlement to service connection for respiratory ailment/breathing problems is remanded. 8. Entitlement to service connection for periodontal condition is remanded. 9. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. 10. Entitlement to compensation for TDIU is remanded. Remand is required to satisfy procedural safeguards for the Veteran’s appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.37(a). VA associated VA and private treatment records with the Veterans claims file after the April 2019 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). On January 22, 2020, the Board sent the Veteran and his representative a letter notifying them of the association of these new records and requesting they waive consideration of this new evidence by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The letter informed that after 45 days, the Board would presume the Veteran did not wish to waive AOJ consideration and remand the appeal for such. To date, the Veteran has not responded. Additionally, the Board notes the Veteran has asserted several of his claimed disabilities are due to service in Southwest Asia. Specifically, he wrote that he served with the 602nd Tactical Air Control Center Squadron in various locations in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq. His DD Form 214 shows he had over five years of foreign service and served in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm. His service personnel records show service for several years in Germany, Panama, and various parts of the United States. The Veteran’s representative points out that his personnel records show service with the 602nd during this time frame out of Texas. Indeed, his personnel records show service with the 602nd Tactical Air Control Center Squadron in Texas from 1990 to 1992 and note that he was “a key player in ensuring the unit’s deployment of 78 people and over 100 short tons of key communications-electronics equipment, in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm….” However, none of these documents confirm that he was deployed to service in any of the countries in Southwest Asia. On remand, the AOJ should request development from the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) to corroborate the Veteran’s reports of deployment with the 602nd Tactical Air Control Center Squadron to Southwest Asia. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request development from JSRRC to corroborate the Veteran’s reports of deployment with the 602nd Tactical Air Control Center Squadron to Southwest Asia. (Continued on the next page)   2. Conduct any other needed development and readjudicate the appeal with consideration of the new evidence associated with the file after the April 2019 SSOC. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A.P. Armstrong, 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.