Citation Nr: 21063360 Decision Date: 10/14/21 Archive Date: 10/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-06 123 DATE: October 14, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for headaches has been withdrawn. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability has been withdrawn. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye glaucoma is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for kidney calculi is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper extremities is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for depression is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for skeletal arthritis is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. During a June 2021 Board hearing, and prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran requested withdrawal of the appeal of the claim of entitlement to service connection for headaches. 2. During a June 2021 Board hearing, and prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran requested withdrawal of the appeal of the claim of entitlement to service connection for a heart disability. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for headaches have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for a heart disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from June 1971 to July 1973. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. In June 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of his testimony is associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for headaches 2. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability The Board may dismiss any appeal which does not allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or the authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. At the June 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran reported that he did not want to continue the appeals concerning the claims of entitlement to service connection for headaches and a heart disability. Therefore, the Veteran has withdrawn these issues from the appeal. There remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of the issues of entitlement to service connection for headaches and a heart disability, and the claims are dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded. As the Veteran's medical records establish a diagnosis or persistent symptoms of diabetes mellitus, type II, and there is an indication, through assertions of the Veteran, that the disability may be related to service, the Board finds that a medical examination with an opinion is necessary to decide the claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 70 (2006). Specifically, a remand is required to afford the Veteran VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of this disability. The Board further notes at this time and the Veteran's service records confirm that he was stationed in Korea from November 1971 to December 1972, which was after the period of time recognized by the Department of Defense as the period in which Agent Orange was used in the area of the DMZ (the period was from April 1, 1968, to August 31, 1971). However, he credibly testified concerning activities of his unit in Korea near the DMZ when he was attached to his unit only several months after August 31, 1971, and witnessed the spraying of marijuana fields in Korea. Therefore, the Board finds that an examination is warranted to determine whether is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's diabetes is related to in-service exposure to herbicides or otherwise related to the Veteran's period of active service. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. As the Veteran's medical records establish a diagnosis or persistent symptoms of hypertension, and there is an indication, through assertions of the Veteran, that the disability may be related to service or another disability which the Veteran claims should be service connected, the Board finds that a medical examination with an opinion is necessary to decide the claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 70 (2006). Specifically, a remand is required to afford the Veteran VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of this disability. The Board further notes at this time and the Veteran's service records confirm that he was stationed in Korea from November 1971 to December 1972, which was after the period of time recognized by the Department of Defense as the period in which Agent Orange was used in the area of the DMZ (the period was from April 1, 1968 to August 31, 1971). However, he credibly testified concerning activities of his unit in Korea near the DMZ when he was attached to his unit only several months after August 31, 1971, and witnessed the spraying of marijuana fields in Korea. Therefore, the Board finds that an examination is warranted to determine whether is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's hypertension is related to in-service exposure to herbicides or otherwise related to the Veteran's period of active service. The Veteran also asserts that his hypertension could be caused or aggravated by his diabetes mellitus, type II. The Board further finds that resolution of the claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus could have a significant impact on the Veteran's claim for service connection of hypertension, therefore, the issues are inextricably intertwined. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that where a decision on one issue would have a "significant impact" upon another, and that impact in turn could render any appellate review meaningless and a waste of judicial resources, the two claims are inextricably intertwined). 3. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye glaucoma is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for kidney calculi is remanded. As the Veteran's medical records establish a diagnosis or persistent symptoms of glaucoma, erectile dysfunction, and kidney calculi; and there is an indication, through assertions of the Veteran, that the disability may be related to another disability which the Veteran claims should be service connected, the Board finds that a medical examination with an opinion is necessary to decide the claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 70 (2006). Specifically, a remand is required to afford the Veteran VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of these disabilities. The Veteran asserts that his glaucoma, erectile dysfunction, and kidney calculi could be caused or aggravated by his diabetes mellitus, type II. The Board finds that resolution of the claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus could have a significant impact on the Veteran's claim for service connection of glaucoma, erectile dysfunction, and kidney calculi, therefore, the issues are inextricably intertwined. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that where a decision on one issue would have a "significant impact" upon another, and that impact in turn could render any appellate review meaningless and a waste of judicial resources, the two claims are inextricably intertwined). 6. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities is remanded. 7. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper extremities is remanded. As there is an indication, through assertions of the Veteran, that he may have peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities that may be related to service or another disability which the Veteran claims should be service connected, the Board finds that a medical examination with an opinion is necessary to decide the claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 70 (2006). Specifically, a remand is required to afford the Veteran VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of these disabilities. The Board further notes at this time and the Veteran's service records confirm that he was stationed in Korea from November 1971 to December 1972, which was after the period of time recognized by the Department of Defense as the period in which Agent Orange was used in the area of the DMZ (the period was from April 1, 1968 to August 31, 1971). However, he credibly testified concerning activities of his unit in Korea near the DMZ when he was attached to his unit only several months after August 31, 1971, and witnessed the spraying of marijuana fields in Korea. Therefore, the Board finds that an examination is warranted to determine whether is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities is related to in-service exposure to herbicides or otherwise related to the Veteran's period of active service. The Veteran also asserts that his peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities could be caused or aggravated by his diabetes mellitus, type II. The Board further finds that resolution of the claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus could have a significant impact on the Veteran's claim for service connection of peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, therefore, the issues are inextricably intertwined. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that where a decision on one issue would have a "significant impact" upon another, and that impact in turn could render any appellate review meaningless and a waste of judicial resources, the two claims are inextricably intertwined). 8. Entitlement to service connection for depression is remanded. As the Veteran's medical records establish a diagnosis or persistent symptoms of depression, and there is an indication, through assertions of the Veteran, that the disability may be related to service, the Board finds that a medical examination with an opinion is necessary to decide the claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 70 (2006). Specifically, a remand is required to afford the Veteran VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of this disability. 9. Entitlement to service connection for skeletal arthritis is remanded. As the Veteran's medical records establish a diagnosis or persistent symptoms of skeletal arthritis, and there is an indication, through assertions of the Veteran, that the disability may be related to service, the Board finds that a medical examination with an opinion is necessary to decide the claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 70 (2006). Specifically, a remand is required to afford the Veteran VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of this disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should afford the Veteran and his representative and opportunity to submit any relevant medical evidence they deem appropriate to support the Veteran's claim. 2. After the above development, regardless of whether the Veteran submitted any additional evidence, the RO shall schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed diabetes mellitus, type II. The examiner should review the claims folder and note such review in the examination report. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed diabetes mellitus, type II had its onset or is otherwise related to the Veteran's active-duty service, to include based on exposure to herbicides. The examiner should consider all evidence, including lay statements, medical records, and other medical opinions of record. Any opinions offered should be accompanied by a clear rationale consistent with the evidence of record. 3. After the above development, the RO shall schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed hypertension. The examiner should review the claims folder and note such review in the examination report. The examiner should provide an opinion as to: a) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed hypertension had its onset or is otherwise related to the Veteran's active-duty service, to include based on the Veteran's exposure to herbicides. b) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed hypertension was caused, or aggravated, by the Veteran's diabetes mellitus. The examiner should consider all evidence, including lay statements, medical records, and other medical opinions of record. Any opinions offered should be accompanied by a clear rationale consistent with the evidence of record. 4. After the above development, the RO shall schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed bilateral eye glaucoma. The examiner should review the claims folder and note such review in the examination report. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed bilateral eye glaucoma was caused, or aggravated, by the Veteran's diabetes mellitus. The examiner should consider all evidence, including lay statements, medical records, and other medical opinions of record. Any opinions offered should be accompanied by a clear rationale consistent with the evidence of record. 5. After the above development, the RO shall schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed erectile dysfunction. The examiner should review the claims folder and note such review in the examination report. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed erectile dysfunction was caused, or aggravated, by the Veteran's diabetes mellitus. The examiner should consider all evidence, including lay statements, medical records, and other medical opinions of record. Any opinions offered should be accompanied by a clear rationale consistent with the evidence of record. 6. After the above development, the RO shall schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed kidney calculi. The examiner should review the claims folder and note such review in the examination report. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed kidney calculi was caused, or aggravated, by the Veteran's diabetes mellitus. The examiner should consider all evidence, including lay statements, medical records, and other medical opinions of record. Any opinions offered should be accompanied by a clear rationale consistent with the evidence of record. 7. After the above development, the RO shall schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities. The examiner should review the claims folder and note such review in the examination report. The examiner should provide an opinion as to: a) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities had its onset or is otherwise related to the Veteran's active-duty service, to include based on the Veteran's exposure to herbicides. b) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities was caused, or aggravated, by the Veteran's diabetes mellitus. The examiner should consider all evidence, including lay statements, medical records, and other medical opinions of record. Any opinions offered should be accompanied by a clear rationale consistent with the evidence of record. 8. After the above development, regardless of whether the Veteran submitted any additional evidence, the RO shall schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed psychiatric disorder. The examiner should review the claims folder and note such review in the examination report. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed psychiatric disorder had its onset or is otherwise related to the Veteran's active-duty service. The examiner should consider all evidence, including lay statements, medical records, and other medical opinions of record. Any opinions offered should be accompanied by a clear rationale consistent with the evidence of record. 9. After the above development, regardless of whether the Veteran submitted any additional evidence, the RO shall schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed skeletal arthritis. The examiner should review the claims folder and note such review in the examination report. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed skeletal arthritis had its onset or is otherwise related to the Veteran's active-duty service. The examiner should consider all evidence, including lay statements, medical records, and other medical opinions of record. Any opinions offered should be accompanied by a clear rationale consistent with the evidence of record. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. R. Montalvo, 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.