Citation Nr: 21069305
Decision Date: 11/18/21	Archive Date: 11/18/21

DOCKET NO. 13-15 389
DATE: November 18, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active-duty service from March 1972 to March 1974.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2012 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

A September 2020 Board decision denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, type 2, glaucoma, and erectile dysfunction. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In a July 2021 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the parties agreed that a remand was warranted, finding that the Board did not ensure substantial compliance with prior remand orders and did not provide an adequate statement in support of its denial of the claims currently before the Board. See also August 2018 Board remand instructions. The CAVC granted the parties motion.

1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded.

2. Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded.

3. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded.

Per the July 2021 JMPR, the Board erred by providing inadequate reasons or bases as to whether the RO substantially complied with the August 2018 remand instructions, as it did not consider that there was no evidence indicating that a response from the United States Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) was obtained regarding the Veteran's claimed service in Vietnam in 1972. To point, the record reveals that the RO merely obtained a negative response from the Armed Forces Pest Management Board regarding the Veteran's service at/on Royal Thai Air Base Nam Phong, Thailand. See July 2019 Memorandum from the Armed Forces Pest Management Board. Thus, in accordance with the July 2021 JMPR, the Board finds that a remand is warranted to assist the Veteran by attempting to verify herbicide exposure as it pertains to his statements that he served in Vietnam for three weeks in 1972 while attached to Marine Aircraft Group 15 (MAG-15). See March 4, 2003 private treatment record; military personnel records. 

The issues of entitlement to service connection for glaucoma and erectile dysfunction are inextricably intertwined with the claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus as a relationship between the conditions is alleged. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1Vet. App.180 (1991). Thus, the Board will defer adjudication of these issues.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Contact the U.S. Department of Army, Records Management and Declassification Agency (RMDA), formerly JSRRC, and attempt to verify herbicide exposure as it pertains to the Veteran's statements that he spent approximately 3 weeks in Vietnam in 1972 while attached to Marine Aircraft Group 15 (MAG-15). 

2. After the above development, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issues of entitlement to service connection for glaucoma and erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to the claimed for diabetes mellitus, type 2 condition.  If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond.  If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review.

 

 

Bethany L. Buck

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	S.R. Fey, 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.