Citation Nr: 21074225 Decision Date: 12/14/21 Archive Date: 12/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-19 677 DATE: December 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a pituitary adenoma is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right facial disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for Sjogren's syndrome is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from April 1973 to June 1974, and in the Marine Corps from September 1979 to May 1982. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a September 2012 rating decision issued by a regional office (hereinafter agency of original jurisdiction or AOJ) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a March 2020 travel Board hearing, a transcript of which has been attached to the record. The Board previously remanded this matter to the AOJ for further development in July 2020. This case has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §7107(b)(3). 38C.F.R. §20.900(c). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a pituitary adenoma is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right facial disorder is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for Sjogren's syndrome is remanded. As noted above, the Board previously remanded the above issues, as well as entitlement to service connection for Raynaud's syndrome (claimed as a right upper extremity and eyelid condition) to the AOJ for further development in a July 2020 decision. The AOJ granted entitlement to service connection for Raynaud's syndrome in a June 2021 rating decision and denied entitlement to service connection for the above in a June 2021 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). However, after the issuance of the SSOC and prior to the return of the matter to the Board, the Veteran submitted additional evidence, including private medical opinions, studies linking Sjogren's syndrome to the Veteran's service-connected mandibular and autoimmune disorders, and a Congressional request for a new examination conducted by an autoimmune disorder specialist. In October 2021 correspondence, the Board notified the Veteran of her right to waive AOJ consideration of evidence submitted after issuance of the SSOC and informed her she had 45 days to respond. As no response indicating waiver of AOJ consideration has been submitted by the Veteran in the 45 days since the mailing of the October 2021 correspondence, remand is necessary for the AOJ to consider the post-SSOC evidence in the first instance and issue an additional SSOC if the claims are not granted in full. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31, 19.37(b). The Board further notes that the Veteran has requested opinion from an autoimmune specialist and had argued that a negative opinion was rendered by an "OB/GYN" doctor. The prior Board remand requested opinion by a neurologist, and the May 2021 opinion is signed by a neurologist. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the claims file all updated VA and relevant private treatment records. 2. Review all relevant evidence that has been associated with the claims file since the issuance of the June 2021 SSOC, to include the medical abstracts and studies, private medical opinions, and Congressional request for an autoimmune specialist examination submitted in July and August 2018, as well as the July 2021 notice of disagreement with the SSOC and September 2021 appellate brief. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the Veteran's claims. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and her representative a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period of time to respond. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. C. Schumacher, 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.