Citation Nr: 20021780 Decision Date: 03/27/20 Archive Date: 03/27/20 DOCKET NO. 16-39 012 DATE: March 27, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from December 1966 to December 1968. Joint Motion for Partial Remand In December 2018, the Board denied service connection for the following disabilities: Diabetes mellitus, type II due to herbicide agent exposure; right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, secondary to diabetes mellitus; right and left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, secondary to diabetes mellitus; frostbite residuals of the ears; and frostbite residuals of the feet. The Veteran appealed the denial of service connection for these claims to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In October 2019, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), remanding the issues of service connection for diabetes mellitus as well as service connection for right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, and dismissing the appeal as to the other claims. The JMPR represents agreement between the parties (the Veteran and VA Office of General Counsel) that the Board erred in failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons and bases in denying service connection for diabetes mellitus, and that the issues of service connection for right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy are inextricably intertwined with the claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus. Specifically, the JMPR reflects that the Board failed to address the RO’s April 2015 formal finding, which states, in part, that the Veteran’s “assignment to Fort Gordon was as a student only and does not fall within the very limited scope of exposure [to herbicide agents].” See Formal Finding dated April 9, 2015 at pg. 1. The parties agreed that neither the RO’s April 2015 formal finding nor the Board explained what constituted the “limited scope of exposure” to herbicide agents at Fort Gordon or why the Veteran’s service did not fall within that scope. See JMPR dated September 30, 2019 at pg. 3. Hence, the parties agreed that on remand, the Board must set forth an adequate statement of reasons and bases regarding whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while serving at Fort Gordon. Id. pg. 3. Pursuant to the JMPR, the Board sent the Veteran and his representative notice that he could submit additional evidence and argument in support of his appeal before the Board would proceed with readjudication. See Board letter dated December 9, 2019. To that end, the Veteran replied by requesting that the Board hold his appeal in abeyance for 90 days. On February 26, 2020, the Veteran submitted additional evidence and argument in support of his appeal and waived any additional time related thereto. Diabetes Mellitus Regarding the Veteran’s claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, the RO’s April 2015 formal finding does not explain what constituted the “limited scope of exposure” to herbicide agents at Fort Gordon or why the Veteran’s service did not fall within that scope. Moreover, on review the formal finding is not clear as to whether the RO relied upon information derived from the “Agent Orange mailbox” in reaching its conclusion that the Veteran was not exposed to herbicide agents at Fort Gordon. Id. The Board must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination, adequate to enable an appellant to understand the precise basis for the Board’s decision, as well as to facilitate review by the Court. Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 527 (1995); 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) (2012). Accordingly, the appropriate agency should be contacted to verify the Veteran’s claimed exposure to herbicide agents at Fort Gordon, Georgia in 1967. If exposure to herbicide agents cannot be established, a new formal finding must be issued as to whether sufficient information required to verify herbicide exposure at Fort Gordon exists. Additionally, all information derived from the “Agent Orange mailbox” that is relevant to herbicide agent storage and use at Fort Gordon should be associated with the electronic claims file. The claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus must then be readjudicated, to include consideration of evidence and statements submitted by the Veteran in February 2020. Peripheral Neuropathy Service connection for right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II, is claimed secondary to the remanded claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus. Therefore, these claims are intertwined with the claim being remanded and the Board must defer its decision regarding these issues. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two or more issues are inextricably intertwined if one claim could have significant impact on the other); see also JMPR dated September 30, 2019 at pg. 3. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the electronic claims file all information derived from the “Agent Orange mailbox” at any time during the pendency of the claims, to include all information and evidence reflecting a “limited scope of exposure” to herbicide agents at Fort Gordon, Georgia as noted in the April 9, 2015 formal finding. 2. Then, contact the appropriate agency to verify claimed exposure to herbicide agents at Fort Gordon. In doing so, specifically utilize the following evidence: (i) evidence from the Veteran’s military personnel file (see VBMS entry with document type “Military Personnel Record” (four folders), receipt date 06/03/2014); (ii) Notice of Disagreement received December 19, 2014 (see VBMS entry with document type “NOD,” receipt date 12/19/2014); and (iii) Veteran’s statement and evidence submitted February 18, 2020 (see VBMS entry with document type “Correspondence,” receipt date 02/18/2020, PDF pages 1 through 73). 3. If exposure to herbicide agents cannot be established, issue a new formal finding as to whether sufficient information required to verify herbicide agent exposure at Fort Gordon exists. Associate the formal finding with the electronic claims folder. 4. Thereafter, readjudicate the remanded claims, to include consideration of evidence and statements submitted by the Veteran in February 2020. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Brad Farrell, Associate Attorney 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.