Citation Nr: 20026038 Decision Date: 04/15/20 Archive Date: 04/15/20 DOCKET NO. 17-22 820 DATE: April 15, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as due to exposure to an herbicidal agent, is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disability, to include as due to exposure to an herbicidal agent and/or hazardous chemicals/jet fuel, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral cataracts, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II, is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1960 to November 1964. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2018, the Veteran testified at hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of this hearing has been associated with the claims file. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was exposed to an herbicidal agent during his active duty. 2. The evidence of record includes a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, type II. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria are met for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Diabetes mellitus, type II, is listed among the conditions presumed to be service connected in veterans that have been exposed to herbicidal agents. Veterans who served in Vietnam are presumed to have been exposed to herbicidal agents, including Agent Orange. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii), 3.309(e). Veterans that served within 12 nautical miles of Vietnam are also entitled to these presumptions. Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The service records demonstrate that the Veteran served aboard the U.S.S. Taluga and that the U.S.S. Taluga operated within 12 nautical miles of the Republic of Vietnam. The evidence of record includes a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, type II. Accordingly, the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus, type II, is to be related to his herbicide agent exposure, and service connection is granted. REASONS FOR REMAND Respiratory Pursuant to the Veteran’s claim he has been provided several VA examinations during which his respiratory disability has been evaluated. The examiners have not provided an opinion, limited the etiological opinion to whether the Veteran’s current disability was caused by in-service exposure to asbestos, or predicated their opinion on the conclusion that the Veteran was not exposed to hazardous chemicals/jet fuel because such exposure was not specifically documented in service records. As discussed in the decision above, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicidal agents during active duty service. Further, the Veteran’s service personnel records clearly demonstrate that he served aboard the U.S.S. Taluga, which is a Cimarron-class fleet oiler that supplied combat vessels with petroleum products, including aircraft carriers engaged air strikes into the interior of the Republic of Vietnam. Consequently, exposure to herbicidal agents and hazardous chemicals, including jet fuel, is established. As such, the Board finds that a remand to provide the Veteran another VA examination is warranted. Back The Veteran asserted that he experienced a back injury during his active duty service and that complaints of associated symptoms were not document in service treatment records because there was no doctor stationed aboard the U.S.S. Taluga, only a Corpsman. Further, the Veteran testified during the February 2018 Board hearing that he did not experience any post-service back injuries. The evidence of record includes a July 2014 opinion that the Veteran’s back disability (disc herniation) was consistent with an “old injury,” but does not specify the Veteran’s alleged in-service back injury. As such, the Board finds that a remand is warranted in order to obtain an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s current back disability is etiologically related to his claimed in-service injury. Bilateral Cataracts As determined above, the Veteran’s current diabetes mellites, type II, is a service-connected disability. The Veteran asserts that his bilateral cataracts are due to his diabetes mellitus, type II. The evidence of record is insufficient to make a determination and, thus, a remand to obtain an opinion is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran with VA examinations regarding his respiratory, back, and bilateral cataracts. The Veteran’s electronic claims file must be made available to the examiners and the examiners must specify in the reports that it was contemporaneously reviewed. All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported. Any indicated special diagnostic tests that are deemed necessary for an accurate assessment must be conducted. The examiners should then provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that any found respiratory disability, any found back disability, and bilateral cataracts was/were incurred in or due to his active duty. With respect to the Veteran respiratory and back disabilities, the examiners must specifically consider and discuss (a) the Veteran’s presumed exposure to herbicidal agents and his demonstrated exposure to hazardous chemical, including jet fuel and other petroleum products; and (b) Veteran’s assertions regarding an in-service back injury, respectively. The examiner administering the eye examination is also asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral cataracts was caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as prescribed medications. All rendered opinions must be accompanied by a thorough rationale. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Sean G. Pflugner, 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.