Citation Nr: 21068311
Decision Date: 11/09/21	Archive Date: 11/09/21

DOCKET NO. 16-46 734
DATE: November 9, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. 

REASONS FOR REMAND

The appellant is a veteran (the Veteran) who had active duty service from August 1965 to August 1968. The Veteran had additional periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) with the Army Reserve. 

This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2021 Order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court). It originates from a May 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio.

In October 2018, the Veteran's representative presented testimony at a Board hearing, chaired by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge sitting at the RO. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file.

In June 2019, the Board remanded this appeal for additional evidentiary development. The appeal has since been returned to the Board for further appellate action. 

In a September 2020 decision, the Board denied this claim. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the Veterans Court. In a June 2021 Order, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion), the Veterans Court vacated the Board's decision and remanded it to the Board. 

Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus.

In the June 2019 remand, the Board made two requests for evidentiary development. First, the Board requested that the agency of original jurisdiction obtain any further information needed from the Veteran to identify the government records related to "Operation Red Hat" referenced by the Veteran in his June 2012 notice of disagreement, and make all reasonable attempts to obtain those records. 

Second, the Board requested that the agency of original jurisdiction make all reasonable attempts to corroborate the Veteran's herbicide exposure claims with the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC). 

The parties to the June 2021 Joint Motion agreed that the agency of original jurisdiction did not complete the first remand instruction. The December 2019 email correspondence from the JSRRC simply addressed the second instruction. Accordingly, the parties agreed that remand was warranted to fulfill the duty to assist, citing Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (a remand by the Board confers on the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders).  

For the reasons stated above, the matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain any further information needed from the Veteran to identify the government records related to "Operation Red Hat" referenced by the Veteran in his June 2012 notice of disagreement; then, make all reasonable attempts to obtain the aforementioned records.

2. Readjudicate the remanded claim. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate time period for response. The case should then be returned to the Board for further consideration, if otherwise in order.

 

 

JONATHAN B. KRAMER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	L. Cramp

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.