Citation Nr: 21072045 Decision Date: 12/02/21 Archive Date: 12/02/21 DOCKET NO. 16-53 678A DATE: December 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a gynecological disorder, to include a hysterectomy and infertility, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from April 1984 to April 1988, to include service in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2017 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) (Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ)). At the October 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran revoked her power of attorney for the Mississippi Veterans Affairs Board. In this regard, a power of attorney may be revoked at any time, and an agent or attorney may be discharged at any time. Unless specifically noted otherwise, receipt of a new power of attorney constitutes revocation of an existing power of attorney. 38 C.F.R. § 14.631(f)(1). In this case, the Veteran has clearly revoked her power of attorney for the Mississippi Veterans Affairs Board. She has not selected another representative. Thus, she is unrepresented in the present matter before the Board. This appeal was previously before the Board in March 2021, at which time, it also included the issue of entitlement to service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder. The appeal was remanded in its entirety for further evidentiary development on both issues. Upon remand, the AOJ granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder. See August 2021 Rating Decision. As this decision represents a full grant of benefits sought, that issue is no longer in appellate posture. Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Given the evidence of record along with the Veteran's contentions, the Board has recharacterized the remaining issue on appeal and consolidated it into one claim, as stated on the title page of this decision. This will provide the most favorable review of the Veteran's claim. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). In regard to the claim for service connection for a gynecological disorder, the March 2021 Board remand instructed the AOJ to obtain relevant outstanding medical treatment records in order to establish any diagnoses related to infertility. Upon remand, the AOJ obtained private medical treatment records from 2011. The records verify that the Veteran was diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia and as a result, underwent a total hysterectomy in February 2011. As these records establish a current diagnosis and ongoing treatment, the Board finds that remand is required to obtain a nexus opinion regarding the Veteran's hysterectomy/infertility and her period of service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA general examination by an appropriate clinician qualified in claimed pathology due to hazardous environmental exposure to determine the nature and etiology of the diagnosed hysterectomy and infertility. The examiner is requested to first clearly state all diagnosed conditions connected with the above request. Then, in regards to each diagnosed condition, the examiner should determine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) the condition is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, and primarily whether due to any confirmed exposure to contaminated water during the Veteran's service at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (defined as exposure to trichloroethyline (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), benzene, and/or vinyl chloride). The examiner should provide a complete rationale for the opinions expressed. If for any reason the examiner cannot give an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she should stat why this is the case. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Orie, 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.