Citation Nr: 21002702 Decision Date: 01/14/21 Archive Date: 01/14/21 DOCKET NO. 15-26 871 DATE: January 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for multiple sclerosis (MS) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from December 1973 to July 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2019, the Veteran testified at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge who is no longer employed by the Board. In November 2020, the Board offered the Veteran a hearing before a different Veterans Law Judge. In the same month, the Veteran notified the Board that he did not wish to appear at another Board hearing. In September 2019, the Board remanded the case for additional development. The case has since returned to the Board for appellate review. Upon review, the Board finds that additional development is needed prior to adjudication of the claim. The Veteran has been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. See September 2005 private treatment records. In a December 2009 statement, the Veteran contended that his multiple sclerosis was caused by the large number of inoculations he received during service. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2019, at which time the examiner opined that the Veteran’s MS was not likely related to his military service, as the separation examination did not indicate neurological symptoms or weakness. An August 2020 VA addendum medical opinion noted that it is less likely that the Veteran’s MS had its nexus in service or within seven years of discharge from service. Nonetheless, the VA medical opinions do not address the Veteran’s assertion that his multiple sclerosis was caused by the large number of inoculations he received during service. Therefore, an additional VA medical opinion is needed. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for MS. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The AOJ should also obtain any outstanding VA medical records. 2. After completing the foregoing development, the AOJ should refer the Veteran’s claims file to a suitably qualified VA examiner for a clarifying opinion as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s MS. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran’s service treatment records, post-service medical records, and lay statements. It should be noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which they have first-hand knowledge. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran or the appellant, the examiner should state this with a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s MS manifested in or was otherwise causally or etiologically related to his military service, including any symptomatology and/or environmental exposures therein. In rendering an opinion, the examiner should address the Veteran’s assertion that his MS was caused by the large number of inoculations he received during service. See December 2009 statement by the Veteran. The examiner should also consider the Veteran’s assertions in the February 2011 notice of disagreement, including that his MS has progressed at a slow rate and likely would have been present during the presumptive period. A clear rationale for all opinions must be provided, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. J. Williams, 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.