Citation Nr: 21073832 Decision Date: 12/10/21 Archive Date: 12/10/21 DOCKET NO. 13-22 120 DATE: December 10, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right elbow disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the Army Reserve. Periods of active duty, active duty for training (ACDUTRA), and inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) have not yet been verified. The Appellant is service connected for disability and is a Veteran. The rating decision notes an extended period of active duty. This appears to be in error. These matters were previously remanded by the Board in May 2016 for evidentiary development. The issues of service connection for a left thumb disorder and abdominal disorder were also remanded, but compensation for relevant disorders was granted in a February 2017 rating decision and those issues are not before the Board. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a right elbow disorder is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder is remanded. As an initial matter, the Board finds that the AOJ did not comply with the May 2016 Remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board directed the AOJ to (1) contact the Veteran requesting that she identify the Army Reserve unit with which she served, (2) to contact the appropriate entities upon receipt of the Veteran's response to certify all periods of active duty, ACDUTRA, and INADCUTRA, and (3) document for the record a chronological listing of these periods of service. VA sent a June 2, 2016 letter to the Veteran requesting the information within 30 days. The Veteran sent a July 25, 2016 letter in response indicating that she did not receive VA's letter until July 3 as she was out of town. She provided her unit. The February 2017 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) indicates that the Veteran did not respond. The Board notes that the Veteran responded outside of the requested 30-day period, but there was good cause for the delayed response. Remand is appropriate for the AOJ to act in accordance with the Board's directives and attempt to verify the periods of service and complete a chronological listing of the verified periods of service. Secondly, the Veteran reports that she exposed to asbestos while performing training in a Memphis, Tennessee hospital in the early 1980's. She has submitted a statement from a fellow Army reservist in support of this assertion. There is no specific statutory or regulatory guidance with regard to asbestos-related diseases. See McGinty v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 428, 432 (1993). However, with consideration of the relevant provisions of the Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1 and the Veteran's lay testimony, the Board has determined that further development into possible asbestos exposure is warranted. Initially, the AOJ should contact the Veteran and request specific details as to her claimed asbestos exposure, to include what activities she believes exposed her to asbestos. Finally, VA examinations are appropriate for the issues on appeal. Service treatment records indicate that the Veteran was treated for and put on physical profiles for right shoulder, back, and right elbow disorders and was treated for an upper respiratory infection. While these records do not make clear that these disorders were incurred during qualified service, medical opinions are still warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran requesting detailed information as to her reported asbestos exposure. This includes the activities and circumstances that she believes exposed her to asbestos. Complete any additional development deemed necessary after her response. 2. Pursuant to the Veteran's July 25, 2016 letter indicating her Army Reserve unit, contact the appropriate entities to request from each unit identified specific and definitive certification of all periods of active duty, ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. Then, document for the record a chronological listing of these periods of service. The development directed below must not be conducted prior to the completion of the actions described in paragraph 2. 3. Schedule the Veteran for VA examinations to determine the etiology of the claimed right shoulder, back, right elbow, and respiratory disorders. Based on examination and a review of the record, the examiner(s) should: (a) Provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e. probability of 50 percent or greater) that the claimed right shoulder disorder began during or is otherwise etiologically related to a verified period of active duty, ACDUTRA, or INACDUTRA. (b) Provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e. probability of 50 percent or greater) that the claimed back disorder began during or is otherwise etiologically related to a verified period of active duty, ACDUTRA, or INACDUTRA. (c) Provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e. probability of 50 percent or greater) that the claimed right elbow disorder began during or is otherwise etiologically related to a verified period of active duty, ACDUTRA, or INACDUTRA. (d) Provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e. probability of 50 percent or greater) that the claimed respiratory disorder began during or is otherwise etiologically related to a verified period of active duty, ACDUTRA, or INACDUTRA. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided in a report. The Veteran is competent to report symptoms and treatment, and her reports must be taken into account, along with the other evidence of record. 4. Prepare a rating decision that accurately reflects the dates of service and the type of service (active duty, acdutra, inacdutra etc.) H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals C. TRUEBA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board W. R. Stephens, 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.