Citation Nr: 21066085 Decision Date: 10/28/21 Archive Date: 10/28/21 DOCKET NO. 17-43 383 DATE: October 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating higher than 20 percent for service-connected Type II Diabetes Mellitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1969 to January 1972. He testified in support of this claim during a "virtual" teleconference hearing in July 2021 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge of the Board. A transcript of the proceeding is of record. The Veteran's last VA examination concerning this disability was in June 2016, so over 5 years ago. When available evidence is too old for an adequate evaluation of the Veteran's current condition, VA's duty to assist includes providing a new examination. Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281 (1993). The Board finds that the June 2016 examination is unduly remote, and there is insufficient medical evidence on file from which the Board can accurately determine the current severity of the Veteran's Type II Diabetes Mellitus. Furthermore, he contends that this service-connected disability has worsened since that prior examination. Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174 (2007). Notably, he testified during his July 2021 hearing before this Board that he must monitor his activity level (so regulate it) to avoid hypoglycemia and, to this end, is required to keep snacks and candy with him at all times in the event of a hypoglycemic episode. See also April 2021 VA Treatment Record. As well, he testified that his erectile dysfunction (ED), which is a complication of his Type II Diabetes Mellitus, also has worsened. See July 2021 Board Hearing Transcript. As such, he needs to be reexamined to reassess the severity of this service-connected disability. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997). Moreover, other than an April 2021 VA treatment record submitted by the Veteran in support of this claim, a preliminary review of the record reveals that his most recent VA treatment records are from July 2017, so from more than 4 years ago, and the records currently in the claims file appear to be incomplete. Any additional VA treatment records are within VA's constructive if not actual, possession and are potentially relevant to this claim, so they, too, must be obtained so they may be considered. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). Accordingly, this claim is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request authorization to obtain all outstanding records pertinent to this claim, whether from VA and/or private medical providers. Also, appropriately notify him and his representative if unable to obtain records identified with sufficient information. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) and (e). 2. After obtaining all additional treatment or other relevant records relevant to this claim, arrange for the Veteran to undergo a VA examination to reassess the severity of his Type II Diabetes Mellitus. All attendant complications of this disease also must be identified, and comment on their severity, as well. A copy of this remand and all relevant medical and other records must be made available to the examiner for review and consideration. The examiner must review the pertinent evidence, including the Veteran's lay assertions, and undertake all necessary testing and evaluation, including in compliance with the current Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) format. In reassessing the severity of the Veteran's Type II Diabetes Mellitus, the examiner is asked to specifically address whether there is: 1) restricted diet, 2) medication prescription (e.g., insulin, etc.), and 3) regulation of activity (meaning also on prescription of a doctor or other qualified healthcare provider). Additionally indicate the extent to which the functional impairment caused by the Veteran's Type II Diabetes Mellitus impairs his ability to meet the demands of a job, whether sedentary or physical, and the time frame in which such impairment arose. All conclusions reached by the examiner should be thoroughly explained. KEITH W. ALLEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mukherjee, Cameron B. 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.