Citation Nr: 21062244 Decision Date: 10/06/21 Archive Date: 10/06/21 DOCKET NO. 13-21 802A DATE: October 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), including as due to exposure to radiation, herbicide agents and asbestos, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for monoclonal gammopathy, including as due to exposure to radiation, herbicide agents and asbestos, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a heart murmur (claimed as ischemic heart disease), including as due to exposure to radiation, herbicide agents and asbestos, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1960 to January 1968. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of May 2010 and October 2011 rating decisions. The Board previously remanded these claims for further in December 2017 and December 2020. Unfortunately, the Board finds that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) failed to complete all necessary development as to the Veteran's claimed exposure to asbestos, radiation, and herbicide agents in service and, thus, another remand is necessary. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), including as due to exposure to radiation, herbicide agents and asbestos, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for monoclonal gammopathy, including as due to exposure to radiation, herbicide agents and asbestos, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a heart murmur(claimed as ischemic heart disease), including as due to exposure to radiation, herbicide agents and asbestos, is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for CLL, monoclonal gammopathy and a heart murmur on a direct basis as related to his active service. He claims that during such service, he was exposed to various hazards, including radiation, herbicide agents, asbestos and contaminated water. Considering the Veteran's seemingly detailed credible contentions concerning such exposure, the Board previously remanded this matter directing the AOJ to exhaust all avenues of development, including contacting the service department, in an effort to determine whether, during service from January 1960 to January 1968, the Veteran was exposed to radiation, herbicide agents, asbestos and/or contaminated drinking water. The Board specifically directed that such development should include securing detailed information on the "special project" in which the Veteran was involved from November to December 1965 on Johnston Island, including its name, purpose and what hazards were involved, and determining whether the Veteran was sent to Johnston Island at any other time during service. With respect to the Veteran's claimed exposure to herbicide agents, the AOJ sent an e-mail with the dates, location, and circumstances of claimed herbicide exposure to Compensation Service. In relevant part, Compensation Service responded that Agent Orange was stored on Johnston Island between April 1972 and September 1977, which was after the Veteran's period of active-duty service. It was also directed that the extensive fact sheet concerning the storage of Agent Orange on Johnston Island be associated with the claims file, which was done. However, the response further indicated that the claim should be referred to the U.S. Army and Records Research Center (RRC) for any information to corroborate the Veteran's claimed exposure. Unfortunately, it does not appear that this next step was done. The Board notes that the U.S. Department of Army, Records Management and Declassification Agency (RMDA) has realigned its records research activities and the RRC no longer exists. Nonetheless, the military records previously researched by the RRC remain available for research by VA as an official source of records. See 86 Fed. Reg. 15413 (March 23, 2021). Thus, the AOJ should request a specific review of the DOD's inventory of herbicide operations to determine whether herbicides were used as claimed by the Veteran. Likewise, except for requesting another radiation risk activity information sheet, which the Veteran again completed in January 2021, the AOJ has not taken any further development concerning the Veteran's radiation exposure. Considering the Veteran's assertions, the Board finds that in order to comply with the Board's prior remands, further development is necessary to determine whether the Veteran was exposed to radiation while on active duty. Accordingly, VA should develop the Veteran's claim as directed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311. As noted in the prior remand, the asbestos exposure reportedly occurred when the Veteran was living at Lackland and Maxwell Air Force Bases from 1960 to 1962 and on Johnston Island in barracks adorned with shingles, siding, floor tiles and roof tiles composed of asbestos. He contends that at Lackland, his Drill Sergeants required the soldiers to shine the floor tiles with their blankets, which they used at night to keep themselves warm. He reportedly drank contaminated water supplied by Schofield Barracks when he and his family lived in Wahiawa, Hawaii (Wheeler Air Force Base), and when he worked with "Detach 3, 1st Weather Wing" at Kunia Camp, an underground facility. However, no further development was done concerning the Veteran's claimed exposure to asbestos and contaminated drinking water. Further, it does not appear that the AOJ attempted to gather any information concerning the "special project" as directed by the Board. The Board also directed that the Veteran be afforded a VA examination with etiology opinion, which was done in July 2021. The examiner found that the claimed conditions were not related to service. The examiner rationalized that the Veteran did not have confirmed exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam or on Johnston Island. However, the examiner did not address the Veteran's contended exposure to radiation, asbestos or contaminated drinking water as directed by the Board. Thus, this opinion is inadequate as it does not comply with the Board's prior remand directives. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the National Personnel Records Center and any other appropriate records repository to determine whether, during service from January 1960 to January 1968, the Veteran was exposed to radiation, herbicide agents, asbestos and/or contaminated drinking water. Such development should specifically include securing detailed information on the "special project" in which the Veteran was involved from November to December 1965 on Johnston Island, including its name, purpose and what hazards were involved, and determining whether the Veteran was sent to Johnston Island at any other time during service. 2. Send a request to the RMDA for verification of the Veteran's contended herbicide exposure while stationed in Hawaii and on Johnston Island, including exposure from C-123 aircrafts. 3. Conduct all necessary development concerning the Veteran's exposure to radiation and develop the claim in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.311, including requesting available records, obtaining the Veteran's Record of Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation (DD Form 1141), if available, forwarding all relevant records to the Under Secretary for Health for a dose estimate and any necessary advisory opinion. 4. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate examiner. The examiner should review the claims file, to specifically include service treatment records, the Veteran's written statements and hearing testimony, post-service treatment records and all information obtained as a result of the above requested development. The examiner must be informed of any confirmed exposure to radiation, herbicide agents, asbestos and contaminated water. The need for another examination is left to the discretion of the clinician. The examiner should offer an opinion as to whether the Veteran's CLL, monoclonal gammopathy or heart murmur is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to the Veteran's service, including any in-service exposure to radiation, herbicide agents, asbestos and/or contaminated drinking water. The examiner should provide rationale for each opinion. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J.N. Moats 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.