Citation Nr: 21001999 Decision Date: 01/12/21 Archive Date: 01/12/21 DOCKET NO. 20-03 966 DATE: January 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus (DM) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of prostate cancer is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1955 to August 1958. The Veteran appeals a June 2018 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). A Board hearing was held in November 2020. A transcript is of record. The Veteran contends his claimed conditions were all due to exposure to certain chemicals while serving in Korea in the 1950s. See November 2020 Board hearing tr. at 3-4. Specifically, the Veteran contends he was exposed to pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides. Id. The Veteran stated he loaded and sprayed certain chemicals himself. Id. Although the Veteran was unsure of exactly what was being sprayed, he indicated the chemicals killed off vegetation and mosquitos. Id. at 5-6. The Veteran submitted various articles noting certain chemicals were used in Korea. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations. However, no etiology opinion was rendered. The Board notes that there is not presumptive service connection for exposure to pesticides or insecticides. Therefore, remand is required to obtain requisite opinions to determine if the Veteran’s claimed conditions are due to his alleged in-service chemical exposures. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA and/or private treatment records relevant to treatment the Veteran received for his DM, Parkinson’s disease, and prostate cancer that are not already of record. All obtained records should be associated with the evidentiary record. If any identified records are not obtainable (or none exist), the Veteran and his representative should be notified, and the record clearly documented. 2. Thereafter, obtain an opinion from a qualified clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s DM, Parkinson’s disease, and prostate cancer. The evidentiary record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and be reviewed by the reviewing clinician. It is up to the discretion of the reviewing clinician as to whether a new examination is necessary to provide an adequate opinion. After the record review and examination of the Veteran, if deemed necessary, the reviewing clinician is asked to respond to the following inquiries: Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s DM was incurred in, or otherwise related, to his time on active service, to include exposure to certain chemicals during active service (pesticides, insecticides)? Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease was incurred in, or otherwise related, to his time on active service, to include exposure to certain chemicals during active service (pesticides, insecticides)? Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s prostate cancer was incurred in, or otherwise related, to his time on active service, to include exposure to certain chemicals during active service (pesticides, insecticides)? In rendering this opinion, the reviewing clinician is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history. Such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the reviewing clinician rejects the Veteran’s reports, he or she must provide an explanation for such rejection. The reviewing clinician is not to improperly discount the Veteran’s lay statements or mistakenly rely on an absence of medical evidence in the record to support his or her conclusions. A complete rationale for all opinions should be set forth and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the reviewing clinician must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the reviewing clinician must explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). 3. After the above development has been completed to the extent possible, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and return the case to the Board, if otherwise in order. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Zheng, 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.