Citation Nr: 20052820 Decision Date: 08/10/20 Archive Date: 08/10/20 DOCKET NO. 16-39 533 DATE: August 10, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for cerebrovascular accident with right hemiplegia (CVA) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1966 to September 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, TN. In May 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. In January 2020, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for further development, and the case has since been returned to the Board. The Board finds that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) has not substantially complied with the remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board directed the RO to follow the guidance provided in the VBA Manual, IV.ii.1.H.7.a, in order to ascertain whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while stationed at Fort Hood. This included contacting the Compensation Service, and then, if the Compensation Service is unable to confirm that the herbicides were so used, then to submit information to the JSRRC to determine whether such exposure can be verified. 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for CVA is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension as due to 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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The RO did not substantially comply with the remand instructions. The RO did obtain, and associate with the file, the Veteran’s records from SSA, VA treatment records, and scheduled the Veteran for an appropriate examination, but did not submit a request for information regarding herbicide exposure to the JSRRC. The Veteran contends he was exposed to herbicide agents while serving as a radar repairman at Fort Hood, Texas during his service. Specifically, the Veteran contended he was tasked with repairing and repainting radio equipment that arrived weekly from Vietnam covered in plastic wrap and marked contaminated. At the December 2019 hearing, the Veteran also contended that a VA physician informed him he was infected with Agent Orange. The Board observes the Veteran underwent an Agent Orange registry examination in August 2004. As such, the key issue in this case is whether the Veteran had herbicide exposure while in service. In January 2020, the Board remanded this case to the RO and ordered it to follow the guidance provided in the VBA Manual, IV.ii.1.H.7.a in order to ascertain whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while stationed at Fort Hood. In February 2020, the RO contacted the Compensation Service regarding the Veteran’s claim of herbicide exposure at Fort Hood. The RO directed the Compensation Service to request a review of DoD’s inventory of herbicide operations to determine whether herbicides were used as claimed under BVA Manual IV.ii.1.H.6.a. In February 2020, the Compensation Service indicated that DoD has not identified Fort Hood, Texas, as a location where Agent Orange was used, tested, stored, or transported, nor was it on the Agent Orange shipping supply line. The Compensation Service indicated it could provide no evidence to support the claim, however, it indicated that the claim should be referred to the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for any information that could be provided to corroborate this Veteran’s claimed exposure. The Compensation Service directed the RO to provide JSRRC with the Veteran’s military unit, location, dates at the location, military occupation, and any other relevant facts, as shown by the Veteran’s actual military records. The record does not indicate the RO contacted the JSRRC for any information that could corroborate the Veteran’s claim of herbicide exposure during his service at Fort Hood. The Board finds that the JSRRC must be contacted to verify whether the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange when he repaired and repainted radar systems at Fort Hood, Texas. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Send a request to the JSRRC for verification of the Veteran’s exposure to Agent Orange. The Veteran’s military unit, location, dates at the location, military occupation, and any other relevant facts, as shown by the Veteran’s actual military records must be provided to the JSRRC. Specifically, he states that he contracted diabetes mellitus and other secondary disabilities after he was exposed to Agent Orange while repairing and repainting radar systems used in Vietnam while stationed at Fort Hood. The Veteran states this occurred while he was on active duty with the 123rd Signal Corps. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M.D. Taylor, 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.