Citation Nr: 21004091 Decision Date: 01/26/21 Archive Date: 01/26/21 DOCKET NO. 14-31 221 DATE: January 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for the Veteran’s cause of death is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from October 1953 to September 1972. He died in November 2012 and the appellant is his surviving spouse. A hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in September 2017. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Following the hearing, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) remanded this matter in February 2018 for further development. After the completion of the additional development, the Board issued the June 2019 decision which denied service connection for the Veteran’s cause of death. The appellant appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In May 2020, the Court issued a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR). In that JMR, the Court vacated the June 2019 Board decision, finding the Office of Surgeon General did not provide a specific response to the VA’s request for information as directed by the February 2018 Board remand. See May 2020 JMR. Entitlement to service connection for the Veteran’s cause of death is remanded. By way of history, through the September 2017 Board hearing testimony, as well as statements throughout the record, the appellant asserts that the Veteran’s asthma preexisted his military service and was permanently aggravated by that service, particularly by exposure to asbestos, chemicals and possible herbicide agents. More specifically, the appellant contends the Veteran was exposed to asbestos while service at Ft. Polk, Louisiana and Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. The appellant claims the basic training barracks in Ft. Polk, Louisiana were open bay barracks that were insulated with asbestos. It was also alleged that the Veteran was assigned as a clerk-typist and his office building was insulated with asbestos until the mid-1970s. Following his assignment at Ft. Polk, the appellant alleges the Veteran worked in another asbestos insulted building in Ft. Leavenworth. In addition to exposure to asbestos, the appellant contends herbicide agents were used to control grass and weed along the fences and gates at Ft. Leavenworth and that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents as a result. See September 2017 Hearing Transcript and see April 2017 Correspondence. In February 2018, the Board remanded the appellant’s claim to the Regional Office (RO) to request information from the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) about whether asbestos had been used in the buildings identified in the appellant’s December 2014 statement. However, the JSRRC responded that they did not research asbestos exposure and recommended contacting the office of Surgeon General. The Office of Surgeon General then responded that the service treatment records stored at the VA Records Management Center for the Veteran were his only existing records. See March 2019 Correspondence. However, as agreed upon in the May 2020 JMR, the response from the Office of the Surgeon General is incomplete. No response was provided as to whether the open bay barracks at Ft. Polk, Louisiana and buildings at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas were insulted with asbestos, and if so, whether the Veteran would have been exposed. Because the Office of the Surgeon General did not provide a specific response to the VA’s request for information, a remand is warranted for a follow-up inquiry. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should undertake any necessary action to develop the appellant’s claim of the Veteran’s asbestos exposure during service. This must include a follow up request to the Office of the Surgeon General to address the issue of whether the open bay barracks at Ft. Polk, Louisiana and buildings at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas were insulted with asbestos, and if so, whether the Veteran would have been exposed. 2. Following the completion of the above, if exposure to asbestos is confirmed, make arrangements for a medical opinion from the Veteran’s records. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion on the following: (a.) Is there clear and unmistakable (obvious manifest or undebatable) evidence that the Veteran’s asthma preexisted his active duty service? Specify this evidence, if it exists. (b.) If it is determined that asthma clearly and unmistakably preexisted service, is there clear and unmistakable (obvious, manifest, or undebatable) evidence that the preexisting asthma disability was not aggravated in service, particularly by exposure to asbestos, beyond the nature progression of the condition? (c.) If the answer to either of the above questions is “no”, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s asthma was related to his service, and particularly his exposure to asbestos therein? A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Churchwell, 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.