Citation Nr: 21074009 Decision Date: 12/14/21 Archive Date: 12/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-62 527A DATE: December 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lymph nodes condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1968 to May 1970. He received the Combat Infantryman Badge. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) remanded the Veteran's claim to the Board. The Court found that the Board's denial of the claim in September 2019 did not provide adequate reasons and bases, as the Board did not discuss why a lack of a medical examination still satisfied VA's duty to assist. As such, in an April 2021 Board decision, the case was remanded for a VA examination and medical opinion. However, although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, another remand is necessary to afford the Veteran due process of law and to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's appeal, so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103a; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Here, the Veteran argues his swollen lymph node condition is due to service, including due to exposure to Agent Orange or other chemical agents during service, or due to an intravenous injection of chlorine bleach shortly before his discharge from service. The Veteran believes such condition continues today. As such, as noted above, the Board remanded the appeal for a VA examination. In June 2021, an examination report revealed the Veteran had a diagnosis for enlarged lymph nodes in the right inguinal region; but it was then noted it had been excised while in service. However, the examiner marked that the condition has progressed/worsened and marked that the Veteran continues to have enlarged lymph nodes in the groin. It was then marked that the Veteran had had a surgery in 1973, but then the examiner marked "currently in watchful waiting status." In the medical opinion, the examiner stated "there is no evidence that the Veteran has a lymph node disorder. The separation physical does not mention anything to that effect." Again, this is confusing as to whether or not the Veteran has a current diagnosis/disability or not; the opinion is based on the Veteran's separation physical and not the current medical record. Therefore, the Board requests a new examination, if necessary, and an addendum opinion to clarify whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis/disability or not, and if so, whether it is as least as likely as not due to exposure to Agent Orange or other chemical agents during service, or due to an intravenous injection of chlorine bleach shortly before his discharge from service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Return the file to the June 2021 examiner. Schedule the Veteran for an examination for his lymph nodes if the examiner deems one necessary. The examiner should indicate review the Veteran's claim file, including this remand. The examiner is to respond to the following: (a.) Does the Veteran have any present lymph node condition? If so, please list it. If not, please explain why. This MUST be answered as the June 2021 examination report was unclear. (b.) For any lymph node condition identified, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to service, to include the Veteran's report of being given an intravenous chlorine bleach solution during service, at which point he began to experience pain and discomfort in his legs, arms and chest. (c.) For any lymph node condition identified, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicide agents during his service in Vietnam? Rationale must be provided for the opinions proffered. If the examiner determines that a requested opinion is not possible without resort to mere speculation, then the examiner must explain why. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board G.Hoy, 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.