Citation Nr: 21061477 Decision Date: 10/04/21 Archive Date: 10/04/21 DOCKET NO. 18-39 771 DATE: October 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents or secondary to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or diabetes mellitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served active duty from August 1959 to March 1967. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of the May 2013 and September 2014 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2019, the Board remanded this appeal for development. As the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) did not substantially comply with the remand, another remand regrettably is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In the September 2019 rating decision, the Veteran was deemed not competent to handle disbursement of funds. Thus, Sara Lang was appointed the Veteran's fiduciary. See October 2019 Certificate of Legal Capacity. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents or secondary to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or diabetes mellitus is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. The Veteran contends that his heart disability to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents or secondary to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or diabetes mellitus is related to his active service. The Veteran contends that his diabetes disability is due to exposure to herbicide agents. The Veteran contends that he had temporary duty assignments (TDYs) in Vietnam. He further provided a map with handwritten notes regarding locations in Vietnam where he visited. In May 2011, the Veteran submitted a statement in support of his PTSD. The Veteran stated that he served in Vietnam at the end of 1960 or early 1961. In July 2021, a professional researcher from the Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service, Military Records Research Center (MRRC), completed comprehensive research on the Veteran's claimed exposure event, his allegation that while assigned to the 6486th Supply Squadron Mid Pac between January 11, 1960 and March 11, 1960, the Veteran had temporary duty assignments in Vietnam and was therefore exposed to herbicides. The researcher partnered with the Air Force Historical Research Agency but was still was unable to corroborate the Veteran's contention or locate any supporting documentation of the claimed exposure event. However, the dates researched do not reflect the dates that the Veteran contended the events occurred. The Board acknowledges that in December 2020, the MRRC was unable to research the request because the circumstances of exposure were not provided for the time periods from June 1960 to August 1960 and August 1960 and September 1960. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has not submitted any additional evidence, but the Veteran has also been deemed incompetent, and thus the Board is requesting a final search to ensure the appropriate dates are researched. Thus, a remand is required to research the proper dates, which the Veteran contended were at the end of 1960 to early 1961. In addition, the January 2012 rating decision awarded the Veteran service connection for PTSD effective March 4, 2011. In March 2007, the RO deferred the Veteran's heart problems claim to include as secondary to PTSD. At that time, the Veteran was not service connected for PTSD, so was not considered. However, now that the Veteran is service connected for PTSD, a remand is required to obtain a medical opinion to determine if the Veteran's heart condition is related to his PTSD (or diabetes mellitus if service connection is granted). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the appropriate agency and provide this remand to determine if the Veteran had any permanent or temporary duty (TDY) stations (to include any DD form 1610 or the equivalent at the time); all travel orders; pay stubs that reflect special pay status, travel vouchers, dislocation allowance, any TDY orders; and, any security clearance, to include reported participation in an assignment called "project seaweed," in Vietnam. **Utilize the information provided by the Veteran in his November 2005 application for compensation in box 29; June 2006 correspondence; June 2006 statement in support of claim; May 2011 statement in support of claim for PTSD; May 2011 correspondence; September 2011 VA examination report(indicating he was part of "black ops"); May 2012 statement in support of claim; August 2015 correspondence (a map with notes by the Veteran regarding locations he visited during service); and August 2015 and September 2015 Notice of Disagreements. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's heart condition. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's heart condition is (1) proximately due to, or (2) aggravated beyond its natural progression by the Veteran's service-connected PTSD or diabetes mellitus disabilities. 3. The examiner should give a detailed explanation for the reasons for the opinion(s) provided. The medical reasons for accepting or rejecting the Veteran's theories of entitlement should be set forth in detail. If the examiner determines that he/she cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain the inability to provide an opinion, identifying precisely what facts could not be determined. In particular, he/she should comment on whether an opinion could not be provided because the limits of medical knowledge have been exhausted or whether additional testing or information could be obtained that would lead to a conclusive opinion. Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382, 289 (2010). (The agency of original jurisdiction should ensure that any additional evidentiary development suggested by the examiner be undertaken so that a definite opinion can be obtained). 4. Then, the Veteran's claims must be readjudicated. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, the Veteran and his representative must be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be given an adequate opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate action. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Quist 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.