Citation Nr: 21075027 Decision Date: 12/17/21 Archive Date: 12/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-16 167 DATE: December 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for anaplastic astrocytoma is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1970 to June 1972, including service in Korea. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2014 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that the Veteran's Certificate of Release or Discharge (DD-214) reflects that he has days lost under 10 U.S.C. § 972 from January 2, 1972 to January 4, 1972; January 22, 1972; February 15, 1972 to February 21, 1972; March 7, 1972 to March 14, 1972; April 1, 1972 to May 3, 1972; and May 5, 1972 to May 8, 1972. The Board remanded the case for further development in January 2020. The development has been completed, and the case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. Upon review, the Board finds that additional development is needed before adjudication of the claims. 1. Entitlement to service connection for anaplastic astrocytoma is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is remanded. The January 2020 remand directed the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to determine if the Veteran served at or near the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ). The Board directed the AOJ to contact the Joint Services Record Research Center (JSRRC) and request that the agency research the assertions of service at or near the Korean DMZ. In a records research response dated November 2020, the JSRRC stated that after reviewing the Veteran's command history in an attempt to substantiate the Veteran's claim, no evidence was located to support documentation of the claimed exposure circumstance. However, the Board finds this response to be inadequate. First, the JSRRC searched the assignments of the "7th Training Battalion, 2nd Training Brigade" for the period between January 8, 1971 and February 7, 1971. However, the Veteran was not assigned to that unit during that time. The Veteran has asserted, and his personnel records show, that he was assigned to the "7th Aviation Battalion, 7th Infantry Division." See VBMS, document labeled NOD, receipt date August 15, 2014, page 2 of 2. He asserts that the job was assigned to him by Company Commander, Major McMillan, which is also supported by his personnel records. See VBMS, document labeled VA 21-4138 Statement In Support of Claim, receipt date April 23, 2019. Second, the period between January 8, 1971 and February 7, 1971 was searched. However, the Board cannot locate any correspondence where the Veteran asserts that this window is the period in which his assignment took him into the DMZ. Further, his personnel records indicate that the Veteran was punished during this time such that he could not leave Camp Casey. See VBMS, document labeled Military Personnel Record, receipt date October 8, 2020, pages 43-48 of 50. Thus, for the foregoing reasons another search for the Veteran's exposure is required. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations for his anaplastic astrocytoma and type II diabetes mellitus in June 2021. With regard to the Veteran's anaplastic astrocytoma, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not that this condition is related to his active duty service. The examiner noted that he could "see no possible relationship with [the Veteran's] two years of active duty [service] ... when the astrocytoma was diagnosed in the year 2000." See June 2020 VA examination. No other rationale was provided. Given the lack of specificity regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's anaplastic astrocytoma, as well as the incomplete rationale, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to obtain an additional medical opinion. Further, the January 2020 remand directed the examiner to specifically consider the April 2013 private provider opinion regarding the etiology of the condition. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request the Veteran provide a 60-day timeframe for his exposure event. Failure to do so may limit VA's ability to research and substantiate his exposure to herbicides. 2. After such development has been attempted, refer the Veteran's claim to JSRRC, or its equivalent (Office of Administrative Review (OAR)). While researching the records, the reviewer should note the following: The Veteran has asserted, and his personnel records show, that he was assigned to the "7th Aviation Battalion, 7th Infantry Division." See VBMS, document labeled NOD, receipt date August 15, 2014, page 2 of 2. He asserts that the job was assigned to him by Company Commander, Major McMillan. And he HAS NOT asserted that the exposure occurred from January 8, 1971 and February 7, 1971. 3. After associating all outstanding relevant records with the Veteran's claims file, the AOJ should obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate medical professional addressing the nature and etiology of the Veteran's anaplastic astrocytoma. The decision for an in-person examination of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the examiner. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran's service treatment records, post-service medical records, and lay statements. It should be noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The clinician should answer the question below: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's anaplastic astrocytoma manifested in service or is otherwise causally or etiologically related to his military service, to include exposure to herbicides? The fact that anaplastic astrocytoma is NOT a condition that is presumptively linked to exposure to herbicides is not a sufficient reason to deny the Veteran's claim. In rendering his or her opinion, the examiner MUST specifically address the private medical opinion dated April 2013 regarding the etiology of the Veteran's anaplastic astrocytoma. The VA medical opinion must include a complete rationale for any opinion provided. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. I. M. Hitchcock Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. DeVerter, 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.