Citation Nr: 21066477 Decision Date: 11/01/21 Archive Date: 11/01/21 DOCKET NO. 18-23 565 DATE: November 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, testicular cancer, and erectile dysfunction due to herbicide exposure in Panama is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service with the Army from May 1970 to December 1971. This matter is on appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) from September 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2020, the Veteran testified in a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is in the evidence of record. In March 2018, the RO issued a Statement of the Case (SOC). However, the Board noted that additional pertinent evidence was received and associated with the Veteran's claims files since the RO's issuance of the SOC. In January 2021, a statement and accompanying evidence was received from John Wells, Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. Mr. Wells indicated the first document showed the planned shipment of 2,4,5-T as early as 1975 to Panama. The second document was an affidavit with pictures from an [REDACTED], who visited the former Panama Canal Zone in March 2020. The photos showed barrels resembling the description of herbicide agent storage containers lined up to limit access to the old military housing unit. The Board may not consider additional evidence not previously reviewed by the AOJ, unless a waiver of initial AOJ review is obtained from the Veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c). The Board acknowledges that for cases in which a substantive appeal is filed after February 2, 2013, a waiver of evidence submitted by a claimant and their representative may be presumed. However, the evidence received in January 2021 appears to have been submitted by a third party. In August 2021, a waiver solicitation letter was sent to the Veteran, noting that if no response was received within 45 days of the letter, it would be assumed that the Veteran did not wish to have the Board decide the appeal at this time and to remand the appeal to the AOJ for review. The Veteran responded to the letter and requested that his appeal be remanded to the AOJ for review of the additional evidence submitted in his appeal. Therefore, the claim must be remanded for initial consideration by the AOJ and issuance of a SSOC. See 38 §§ C.F.R. 19.31, 19.37, 20.1304. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. After completion of any additional development deemed necessary, the issues on appeal should be reviewed with consideration of all applicable laws and regulations. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a SSOC and be afforded the opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K.L. Byers 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.