Citation Nr: 21061512 Decision Date: 10/04/21 Archive Date: 10/04/21 DOCKET NO. 17-40 047 DATE: October 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), based on service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1967 to June 1969. He was the recipient of a Combat Infantry Badge and Bronze Star for his service in the Republic of Vietnam. The Veteran died in September 2016. The Appellant is his surviving spouse. In November 2016, the Appellant filed an application for DIC, death pension, and accrued benefits. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Appellant filed a notice of disagreement in April 2017. In July 2017, a statement of the case was issued, and the Appellant filed a substantive appeal via a VA Form 9 in July 2017. In her notice of disagreement and appeal to the Board she only appealed the denial of entitlement to DIC. Thus, entitlement to DIC is the sole issue before the Board. The Board also notes, the Appellant requested a hearing before the Board. However, in April 2021, she withdrew this request. REASONS FOR REMAND While the Board sincerely regrets this delay, the record reflects that further development is required with respect to the etiology and nature of the Veteran's glioblastoma of the brain (glioblastoma). The Appellant seeks service connection for the Veteran's glioblastoma. She contends the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange during his military service, which led to his developing a glioblastoma and subsequently caused his death. The Veteran's death certificate indicates the Veteran died of glioblastoma as a result of his exposure to Agent Orange. The Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam and his DD-214 shows that his military occupational specialty was infantryman. Thus, the Veteran was "boots on the ground" in the Republic of Vietnam and Agent Orange exposure is conceded. The Board notes that even though glioblastoma is not included as a presumptive disorder under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), direct service connection may be established by evidence demonstrating that the disease was in fact incurred during service. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As noted above, the Veteran's exposure to Agent Orange is conceded. The certificate of death also shows the Veteran died as result of glioblastoma due to exposure to Agent Orange. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds sufficient evidence to obtain a comprehensive medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's glioblastoma. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i). Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a medical opinion from an examiner with sufficient expertise to comment on the etiology of the Veteran's glioblastoma. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner, including a copy of this remand. Any indicated studies should be performed. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner should be instructed to provide the following opinion: a) whether the Veteran's conceded herbicide exposure at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) caused or aggravated his glioblastoma of the brain. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all proffered opinions. If an examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If an examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Nestander, Jessica S. 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.