Citation Nr: 20053784 Decision Date: 08/13/20 Archive Date: 08/13/20 DOCKET NO. 14-08 876 DATE: August 13, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for microvascular coronary disease, claimed initially as a heart disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected hepatitis C and as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as secondary to service-connected hepatitis C and as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty from April 1972 through March 1974. Testimony was received from the Veteran regarding his claim for service connection for a heart disorder during a January 2016 Board hearing. A transcript is of record. The Veteran requested in a February 2016 VA Form 9 substantive appeal that a hearing also be held in the matter of his claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. That hearing request was later withdrawn by the Veteran in a September 2018 letter. The issues on appeal have been remanded previously by the Board, most recently in August 2019. The development ordered in that remand has been completed and the matter is now returned to the Board. 1. Herbicide exposure development. The evidence shows that microvascular coronary disease was diagnosed for the Veteran in April 2010. Diabetes mellitus, type II was diagnosed following blood tests conducted in January 2011. The treatment records show that the Veteran has remained under continuing treatment for microvascular coronary disease and diabetes. Notably, VA treatment records from August 2010 indicate that the Veteran’s microvascular coronary disease is a type of ischemic heart disease. Indeed, social security records show that the Veteran has been in receipt of social security disability benefits due to ischemic heart disease. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e), where a veteran is shown as having been exposed to herbicide agents during service, ischemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus, type II are presumed as being due to such exposure. In a June 2014 disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ), the Veteran’s treating nurse practitioner notes that the Veteran was reporting that he was exposed to Agent Orange and other herbicides while he was stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky in 1972. In a February 2016 statement, the Veteran elaborates that herbicides had come to be introduced into the environment at Fort Knox in the 1940’s during a Department of Defense (DoD) program called “Sphinx.” VA has yet to undertake any effort to corroborate the Veteran’s theory of in-service herbicide exposure. On remand, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) should contact the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) and any other appropriate agency to determine whether the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicide agents during service in Fort Knox, Kentucky. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(2). 2. Service personnel records. In conjunction with the above, the record indicates that VA has not made any effort to obtain the Veteran’s service personnel records. It is likely that those records would contain relevant information pertaining to the Veteran’s dates and locations of service and other information that might be related to the Veteran’s theory of herbicide exposure. As such, the AOJ should also contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) and any other appropriate agency to obtain the Veteran’s service personnel records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(2). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be asked whether he has additional evidence pertaining to his microvascular coronary disease, diabetes mellitus, type II, and his claimed herbicide exposure during service at Fort Knox, Kentucky and as a result of the DoD’s “Sphinx” project. Records of any VA treatment received by the Veteran since April 2020 and any newly identified private treatment or information concerning herbicide exposure held by a private entity should be obtained. If the records are not available, such unavailability should be documented in the record. The Veteran should be notified of unsuccessful efforts in order to allow him the opportunity to obtain and submit those records for VA review. 2. Obtain the Veteran’s service personnel records. If the records are not available, such unavailability should be documented in the record. The Veteran should be notified of unsuccessful efforts in order to allow him the opportunity to obtain and submit those records for VA review. 3. Contact JSRRC or other appropriate agency to corroborate whether the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicide agents during any documented service at Fort Knox, Kentucky. All research attempts should be documented in the claims file and VA should issue a formal finding as to whether it is able to corroborate the Veteran’s exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicide agents. 4. After completion of the above development, the issues on appeal should be readjudicated. If the determination remains averse to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished with a SSOC and be given an opportunity to respond. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D.S. Lee 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.