Citation Nr: 21067036 Decision Date: 11/03/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 13-03 126 DATE: November 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disorder, to include as due to asbestos exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from June 1981 to November 1981, and in the U.S. Navy from October 1986 to April 1995. In a final, unappealed October 2011 administrative decision, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) determined that the Veteran's service in the U.S. Navy from October 27, 1986 to October 28, 1990 was honorable, but that the character of the Veteran's service from October 29, 1990, to April 6, 1995, was dishonorable for VA purposes and a bar to all VA benefits based on that period of service. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2012 rating decision issued by a VA Regional Office (RO). By way of background, a November 2020 U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) Memorandum Decision vacated the Board's March 2019 denial of service connection for a cardiovascular disorder and remanded the matter to the Board for further development and re-adjudication. Subsequently, the Board in July 2021, remanded the Veteran's claim for further development. Specifically, the Board requested that the RO ask the Veteran to identify all post service employment, with an emphasis on possible asbestos exposure, to fully develop the Veteran's assertion that he was exposed to asbestos during service, and to obtain a new VA medical examination to identify any current cardiovascular conditions as well as to opine whether any such diagnosed condition(s) are directly related to service, to include exposure to asbestos. The resulting development was not responsive to the Board's directives and, therefore, further remand is, unfortunately, required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271(1998). Entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disorder, to include as due to asbestos exposure, is remanded. As noted above, the Board in its' July 2021 remand, requested that the RO ask the Veteran to provide his post service employment history and to fully develop the Veteran's assertion that he was exposed to asbestos during service while retiling flooring on ships. In addition, the Board requested that the RO afford the Veteran a VA examination and medical opinion concerning his cardiovascular disability in order to verify any current diagnosis as well as to opine whether any noted diagnosis is directly related to service, to include exposure to asbestos. The Board finds that the requested development has not occurred and therefore further remand is required. Here, the RO requested employment information from the Veteran in a letter dated July 26, 2021. As of the date of this decision, no response by the Veteran or his representative has been received. However, at the time of this decision, the claims file does not contain any development by the RO as to verification of the Veteran's in-service asbestos exposure. The claims file also does not contain any new VA examinations or medical opinions as to whether any diagnosed cardiovascular conditions are directly related to service, to include exposure to asbestos. The Board's July 2021 directives did not provide that the RO could stop all claims development and issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) if the Veteran did not provide any updated information. A remand by the Board confers upon the claimant a legal right to substantial compliance with the remand order; thus, when the Board's remand directives are not satisfied, the Board errs as a matter of law if it fails to ensure substantial compliance with such directives. See Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. Therefore, as substantial compliance with the Board's July 2021 Remand directives has not occurred as set forth above, the Veteran's claim must once again be remanded for further development. See id. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify his post service employment history, describing the nature of his duties at each (specifically indicating whether his work involved exposure to asbestos). 2. Regardless of whether the Veteran responds to directive number 1, fully develop the Veteran's claim regarding the nature and extent of his exposure to asbestos during and since service. The RO must specifically address the assertion of exposure to asbestos while peeling insulation that contained asbestos fibers from pipes and re-tiling flooring reportedly composed of asbestos. All efforts to verify the Veteran's asbestos exposure must be documented in the claims file and if it is determined that further efforts would be futile, a memorandum outlining all steps taken and conclusions reached should be drafted and associated with the claims file. 3. After the above has been completed, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any heart disability. Upon review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should answer the following: (a) Identify any heart disability found in the record during the period on appeal (to specifically include cardiomegaly and mild left ventricular hypertrophy diagnosed in the June 2018 VA heart examination, and possible old anteroseptal myocardial infarction shown on July 2018 EKG). (b) Whether any diagnosed heart disability is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran's military service, to include as due to claimed exposure to asbestos. (c) If any diagnosed heart disability is determined to not be directly related to the Veteran's service, the examiner must identify the more likely etiology and explain why that is so. All opinions must include a complete rationale with supporting factual data and medical principles. (Continued on the next page) 4. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issue on appeal. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. F. Minnitte, Attorney Advisor 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.