Citation Nr: 20033064 Decision Date: 05/12/20 Archive Date: 05/12/20 DOCKET NO. 19-05 333 DATE: May 12, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral peripheral neuropathy, to include as due to chemical and herbicide exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1988 to April 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2012 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral peripheral neuropathy, to include as due to chemical and herbicide exposure, is remanded. 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. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2019). The evidentiary record shows that the Veteran has been diagnosed with bilateral peripheral neuropathy. See March 2019 VA examination. The Veteran asserts that his neuropathy is the result of his service. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that his neuropathy is the result of Agent Orange exposure during the Vietnam war. The evidentiary record shows that the Veteran served in Vietnam. A June 1969 Award of the Bronze Star Medal report shows that the Veteran participated in military operations against hostile force in Vietnam. See June 1969 military personnel record. Thus, herbicide exposure is conceded. The Board finds that the March 2019 VA examination afforded to the Veteran is inadequate. The VA examiner found that the Veteran’s bilateral peripheral neuropathy was not due to Agent Orange exposure because he was not diagnosed within one year of separation from service nor where there any complaints in his STRs. The Board finds this examination inadequate for purposes of adjudication because it is speculative, conclusory, and not supported by complete rationale. The Board notes that the VA examiner never discussed the Veteran’s conceded exposure to Agent Orange. Furthermore, the VA examiner did not account for continuity of symptomatology when addressing service connection on a direct basis, merely focusing on the lack of complaints in the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs). As such, the Board finds that a new VA examination is warranted addressing both a direct theory of entitlement to service connection as well as due to conceded herbicide exposure. When VA undertakes to either provide an examination or to obtain an opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral peripheral neuropathy. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner, and a note that it was reviewed should be included in the report. After reviewing the claims file and examining the Veteran, the examiner should answer the following question: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s currently diagnosed bilateral peripheral neuropathy had its onset in or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s service, to include conceded exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. A detailed rationale for the opinion must be provided. Review of the entire claims file is required. (Continued on the next page)   If the examiner is unable to offer the requested opinion, it is essential that the examiner offer a rationale for the conclusion that an opinion could not be provided without resort to speculation, together with a statement as to whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. See Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (2010). 2. After completing the above, and any other development as many be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and return the case to the Board. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. C. Slaughter, 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.