Citation Nr: 21069775 Decision Date: 11/19/21 Archive Date: 11/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-07 915 DATE: November 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for gynecomastia, to include as secondary to medications for service-connected hypertension, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1983 to February 1993. The appeal was previously before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of February 2015 rating decision of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In September 2018, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. In an April 2019 decision, the Board denied service connection for gynecomastia and diabetes mellitus, type II. In April 2020, the Veteran appealed the portion of the Board's decision that denied service connection for gynecomastia to the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (Court) which granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties. The Veteran expressly waived his appeal to the issue of diabetes. In an April 2020 Order, the Court vacated, in part, the Board's April 2019 decision with regard to the issue of gynecomastia and remanded the matter to the Board consistent with the terms of the joint motion. Thereafter, in September 2020, the Board remanded the matter to obtain a VA medical opinion. Issue: Entitlement to service connection for gynecomastia. The Veteran has consistently maintained gynecomastia as secondary to medication (Felodipine) prescribed for his hypertension. In compliance with the Board's recent remand, development was accomplished regarding this contention. See VA contract opinions of July and September 2021. However, additional development is required related to newly raised contentions. In a recent October 2021 correspondence, the Veteran asserted that VA failed to note other exposures that were related to his job "as a Chemical Operations Specialists formerly known as a Nuclear Biological Chemical Specialist". See Correspondence dated October 14, 2021, received October 29, 2021. Specifically, he alleged exposure to hazardous materials while stationed at Fort McClellan Alabama for "training including Basic and AIT also BNCO.... live agent training at Red Stone Arsenal in Huntsville Alabama" and exposure to "nuclear capable howitzer battery." Id. He added "I participated in field training in new chemical equipment that required simulated chemical environments." Id. As no development was performed regarding possible exposure at Fort McClellan and Huntsville Alabama, the Board finds that a remand is needed. Additionally, the Veteran submitted a copy of Public Health Record titled, "Potential Exposure at Fort McClellan" and an excerpt from an article on "Gynecomastia and Medication". While these articles do not in and of themselves establish that the Veteran had direct exposure to the alleged radiation agents or nuclear materials, they in combination with the Veteran's own reported history of events and circumstances of his duties in service as Chemical Operations Specialists triggered VA's obligation to assist the Veteran in verifying his personal accounts of exposure. Thus, further development is warranted. By this remand, the Board makes no determination, express or implied, concerning the credibility of any lay statements on file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to confirm whether the Veteran had exposure to hazardous materials while stationed at Fort McClellan Alabama for training including Basic and AIT also BNCO. The Veteran states his MOS as a Chemical Operations Specialists formerly known as a Nuclear Biological Chemical Specialist, he participated in field training in new chemical equipment that required simulated chemical environments. See Correspondence dated October 14, 2021, received October 29, 2021. 2. Attempt to confirm whether the Veteran had exposure "live agent training at Red Stone Arsenal in Huntsville Alabama" and exposure to "nuclear capable howitzer battery." See Correspondence dated October 14, 2021, received October 29, 2021. If there is still insufficient information to verify exposure to asserted chemical, radiation agents, nuclear materials, issue a finding outlining the steps taken to assist the Veteran and notify the Veteran of VA's inability to verify the in-service exposure, and or the in-service exposure to other hazardous materials. Document requests for information as well as responses in the claims file. 3. After verification of exposure above, if warranted, obtain an addendum opinion from a qualified medical professional to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed gynecomastia. The electronic claims file should be made accessible to the examiner along with any other information the medical professional deems pertinent. If the reviewer determines that additional examination of the Veteran is necessary to provide a reliable opinion, such examination should be scheduled. The examiner should provide an addendum opinion as to whether it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's claimed gynecomastia is etiologically related to his period of active service to include alleged exposure to chemical, radiation, nuclear materials while stationed at Fort McClellan and Huntsville Alabama? Supporting rationale for all opinions expressed is requested. 4. Upon completion of the requested development and any additional development deemed appropriate, adjudicate the claims on appeal. If the determination remains unfavorable, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case which addresses all relevant evidence. The Veteran and his representative should be afforded the applicable time period in which to respond. Then, return the case to the Board. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. A., 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.