Citation Nr: 21003794 Decision Date: 01/22/21 Archive Date: 01/22/21 DOCKET NO. 18-35 044 DATE: January 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for xerostomia, to include as due to herbicide exposure and/or a service-connected disability, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD), to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1971 to August 1977. These issues come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In September 2019, the Board made an unfavorable determination on the Veteran’s claims for service connection for xerostomia, diabetes, and CAD. A May 2020 United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) Order vacated the Board’s decision and adopted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) for additional development and re-adjudication of the claim. Thus, these issues have been returned to the Board for further consideration. 1. Entitlement to service connection for xerostomia, to include as due to herbicide exposure and/or a service-connected disability, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for CAD, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. The Veteran is seeking entitlement to service connection for xerostomia, diabetes, and CAD, to include as due to herbicide exposure. Specifically, the Veteran contends that he was exposed to Agent Orange while he was stationed at El Toro in California. The Veteran asserts that while at El Toro he was assigned to a duty of rehabilitation Marine Air Group-11 (MAG-11) facilities, he was asked to complete weed and undergrowth removal from around the buildings, fence lines, parking lot, receiving docks, etc. The Veteran further asserts that they used Agent Orange on a daily basis from when he first arrived in 1972 for two to three months, and that this was an ongoing practice throughout his military service. The Veteran’s DD 214 indicates an active duty service period from June 1971 to August 1977 as an Aviation Supply Specialist. Additionally, the Veteran’s military personnel records (MPRs) indicate that he was stationed at El Toro and assigned to the MAG-11 from March 1972 to October 1974 and again from September 1975 to August 1977. The Board notes that in September 2016, the VA issued an administrative decision for a formal finding on a lack of information required to verify exposure to Agent Orange outside Vietnam. Although the Veteran submitted statements and his MPRs show the dates he was stationed at El Toro, the information was still considered insufficient to verify the claimed exposure. The administrative decision further notes that the Veteran did not supply the requested 60-day time period he alleges being exposed to Agent Orange as requested by the VA and required by the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC). As discussed above, in May 2020, the Court issued a JMR and an Order vacating and remanding these claims. The Court found that the Board failed to ensure it satisfied the duty to assist as the VA made only one request for the Veteran to provide more information about his alleged herbicide exposure before making the September 2016 formal finding that it lacked the information to verify this exposure. The Court further found remand warranted to offer the Veteran another opportunity to provide the timeframe of his alleged exposure to Agent Orange to facilitate development of his claim. Significantly, the Veteran apparently has alleged the use of Agent Orange in his first few months at El Toro. As such, at a minimum, a search from March to June 1972 could be undertaken. The Veteran will be offered another opportunity to submit evidence or timeframes of the alleged exposure as part of the development herein. While the Veteran has not provided specific dates of his claimed herbicide exposure, he has indicated that his exposure took place periodically throughout his military service. Further, his MPRs indicate that he was stationed at El Toro and assigned to the MAG-11 from March 1972 to October 1974 and again from September 1975 to August 1977. Therefore, additional development is required to verify exposure to herbicide agents while stationed at El Toro, California. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the approximate dates, locations, and nature of his exposure to herbicides while serving in El Toro, California. 2. Thereafter, attempt to verify the Veteran's in-service exposure to herbicide agents as asserted by the Veteran. If there is insufficient information to verify exposure to herbicide agents, issue a Formal Finding outlining the steps taken to assist the Veteran and notify the Veteran of the VA's inability to verify the Veteran's in-service herbicide exposure. Specifically, investigate by contacting appropriate authorities whether there is any finding or evidence that Agent Orange was used at El Toro, California from March to June 1972, as the Veteran has alleged it was used during his initial time on the base. All attempts to undertake the investigation should be set out as should any and all findings. 3. After the development requested has been completed, the AOJ should review the expanded record to ensure complete compliance with the directives of this REMAND. If any report is deficient in any manner, implement corrective procedures at once. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Frazier, Associate Attorney 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.