Citation Nr: 21063289 Decision Date: 10/13/21 Archive Date: 10/13/21 DOCKET NO. 19-28 275 DATE: October 13, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for facial scar and residuals is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Navy from November 1952 to November 1956. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In October 2021, the Veteran testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned. Service connection for facial scar and residuals is remanded. During his October 2021 hearing, the Veteran testified that during service he was injured in an explosion while serving aboard the USS Toledo (CA-133) in 1953. The Veteran testified that the explosion caused shrapnel to be lodged in his face, near his eye. While he was treated, medics were unable to remove the shrapnel and it remained. See also March 2018 Statement and August 2019 Statement. The Veteran's November 2016 VA treatment records confirm that the Veteran was unable to undergo an MRI due to "metallic foreign body in his eye." The Board notes that the Veteran was assigned to the USS Toledo from March 1953 to June 1956. See April 2018 Personnel Record. Additionally, despite the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement in July 1953, applicable VA regulations provide that the Korean War was still ongoing for VA compensation purposes at the time of this Veteran's claimed event. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2(e) (2020) (providing that the dates of the Korean War are "June 27, 1950, through January 31, 1955, inclusive"); cf. "Armistice Agreement for the Restoration of the South Korean State," National Archives (accessed via https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/index.html?dod-date=727) (providing that "[the] Korean War officially ended on July 27, 1953"). The Board finds the Veteran to be credible as to a combat injury sustained during a wartime period. Lastly, the Board notes that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination with respect to his current claim. Here, the Veteran's November 2016 VA treatment records reflect the presence of a metallic foreign body in his eye; the Veteran has asserted that this is due to service; and has provided lay evidence that the condition has continued since service; however, there is insufficient evidence of record to decide the claim. Consequently, remand for an examination and etiology opinion is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) (2020); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83-86 (2006); Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 410 (2006). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Assist the Veteran in associating with the claim folder updated treatment records. 2. After the foregoing development has been completed to the extent possible, arrange to have the Veteran scheduled for the appropriate VA examination(s). The examiner(s) should review the record. All indicated tests should be conducted and the results reported. The claim file should be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. Based on review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: a) Is it at least as likely as not (probability of 50 percent or more) that the current facial scar and residuals, or any other diagnosed disability, had its onset in or is related to service? In so doing, the examiner should discuss the Veteran's credible statement of being injured in an explosion while serving aboard the USS Toledo (CA-133) in 1953. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries observable to a layperson. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The examiner is also reminded that the absence of documented treatment in service or thereafter is not fatal to a service connection claim, and the absence of evidence in the service treatment records is an insufficient basis, by itself, for a negative opinion. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Thus, the examiner is to consider the totality of the record, and not just the absence of clinical treatment, in weighing the Veteran's statements asserting symptomatology. A complete medical rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. (continued on next page) 3. If upon completion of the above action the issue remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Gandhi, 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.