Citation Nr: 21071799 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 12/01/21 DOCKET NO. 17-66 229 DATE: December 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure, are remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Air Force from April 1964 to April 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c); 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). The Veteran contends that his coronary artery disease, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, type II, are due to his period of active service. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that his disabilities are a result of exposure to herbicide agents while serving on Temporary Duty (TDY) in Guam. Service personnel records indicate that the Veteran served on Anderson Air Force Base in Guam from November 1965 to March 1966 and from June 1967 to December 1967. The Board notes that the record does not establish, nor does the Veteran contend, that he served in the Republic of Vietnam or at the Korea DMZ during the time periods enumerated in the regulations when presence at either location would allow for a finding of presumed exposure to herbicide agents. See generally September 2014 Veteran Letter (noting that a prior representative encouraged him to previously state he was exposed to herbicides in Vietnam, but clarifying that his exposures were in Guam). In September 2014 correspondence, the Veteran stated that, while serving in Guam, he worked on the AGM-28 missile that hung under both wings of the B-52. He stated that his job was to keep the weapons release system operational and was up and down the flight line from the bomb revetments to the aircraft on the airfield. He reported that the foliage all around the revetments was brown due to chemical spraying. He also stated that he recalled seeing storage barrels at the edge of the base, and asserts he was exposed to dioxin. In a May 2015 VA Memorandum, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) determined that the information required to verify service in the Republic of Vietnam, or Agent Orange exposure during military service was insufficient to concede that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents. In support, the memorandum cited a May 2015 response from the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS) stating that the Veteran's unit history was negative for service in the Republic of Vietnam. In April 2019, this matter was remanded by the Board for additional development. The Board found that the DPRIS inquiry, which confirmed that his unit did not serve in Vietnam, was not responsive to the Veteran's contentions that he was exposed to herbicide agents in Guam. The Board remanded the matter, instructing the AOJ to take all appropriate steps to verify the Veteran's contention that he was exposed to herbicide agents while serving on TDY in Guam. Pursuant to the April 2019 remand, the AOJ submitted a Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) request form using DPRIS in October 2019 regarding the Veteran's claimed exposure to herbicide agents in Guam. In a November 2019 DPRIS response, Compensation Services rejected the request as inadequate for JSRRC to conduct meaningful research. As detailed in the response, the AOJ was instructed to input a new JSRRC request with additional information regarding the Veteran's unit of assignment while serving in Guam. The record shows that the AOJ submitted a new JSRCC request form using DPRIS in November 2019 including the additional unit of assignment information requested and identified by Compensation Services. Unfortunately, the record does not contain a response from JSRRC or Compensation Services regarding the updated request or show that any additional development was conducted following the submission of the updated request. Further, the Board notes, there has been a regulatory amendment removing the reference to the JSRRC in 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(2). The Federal Register explained that the JSRRC no longer exists, but that the military records themselves previously researched by the JSRRC remain available for research by VA as an official source of records. 86 Fed. Reg. 15413 (Mar. 23, 2021). VBA's Office of Administrative Review (OAR) has advised that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) which the RO falls under, is using an internal process to research records. As the record indicates that the development regarding the Veteran's claimed exposure to herbicide agents in Guam was not completed, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with its April 2019 remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999) (noting that Stegall requires substantial compliance with remand orders, rather than absolute compliance). Accordingly, the Board finds that a remand is warranted to address or verify the Veteran's claimed exposure. As the JSRRC has been closed, the AOJ should conduct the necessary research through VA's internal procedures. Accordingly, these matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Undertake appropriate efforts to attempt to verify the Veteran's reported in-service exposure to herbicide agents while serving in Guam through VA's internal procedures. Requests should be made to all appropriate official sources. All attempts to verify the Veteran's reported exposure must be documented in the claims file. 2. If, an only if, exposure to herbicide agents is identified, obtain a medical opinion addressing whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's hypertension is related to such exposure. A complete rationale for any opinions expressed should be provided. The report should set forth all complaints, findings, and diagnoses relating to the Veteran's hypertension and provide a rationale for all conclusions reached. If the requested opinions cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts, or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner, i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training. (Continued on the next page) 3. After completion of the aforementioned, the AOJ should readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, then the AOJ should provide the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case and afford him the appropriate opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case must be returned to the Board for further appellate review. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. VanValkenburg, 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.