Citation Nr: 21075512 Decision Date: 12/20/21 Archive Date: 12/20/21 DOCKET NO. 19-36 134A DATE: December 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left leg neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right leg neuropathy is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from November 1965 to January 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2018 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for left leg neuropathy is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for right leg neuropathy is remanded. The Veteran contends both his left and right leg neuropathy is related to his active service, to include exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand. See Mar. 2018 Statement in Support of Claim; Aug. 2020 Appellate Brief. Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during an applicable period are presumed to have been exposed to tactical herbicides; for those Veterans, if they later develop certain diseases, such as early-onset peripheral neuropathy, a relationship between that disease and service is presumed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). However, VA has also determined that there was significant use of herbicides on the fenced-in perimeters of bases in Thailand intended to eliminate vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes as evidenced in a declassified Vietnam era Department of Defense (DoD) document titled "Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report: Base Defense in Thailand." VA Compensation Service has acknowledged that Veterans who served in Thailand during the Vietnam era may have been exposed to tactical herbicides procured from Vietnam, or commercial herbicides of much greater strength and with characteristics of tactical herbicides. See Parseeya-Picchione v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 171, 177 (2016). As such, VA determined that special consideration is warranted for veterans who served during the Vietnam Era at one of the Royal Thai Air Force Bases (RTAFB) at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, or Don Muang, and whose duties placed them at or near sites where herbicides were used. The Board notes that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination as to his bilateral leg neuropathy. VA's duty to assist includes providing a medical examination when it is necessary to decide a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Such development is necessary if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but (1) contains competent evidence of diagnosed disability or symptoms of disability, (2) establishes that the Veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in service, or has a presumptive disease during the pertinent presumptive period, and (3) indicates that the claimed disability may be associated with the in-service event, injury, or disease, or with another service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83-86 (2006). The third prong, which requires that the evidence of record "indicate" that the claimed disability or symptoms "may be" associated with the established event, is a low threshold. McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. Here, a private provider has diagnosed the Veteran with peripheral neuropathy, and VA treatment records note peripheral neuropathy. See Dec. 2017 Disability Benefits Questionnaire; Dec. 2017 Medical Treatment Record Non-Government Facility; Aug. 2018 CAPRI, p. 25. Next, the Veteran reported that as an electrician, he was subjected to numerous shocks; the Board finds that electrical shocks would be consistent with his terms of service. He also contended that he was exposed to herbicide agents and other chemicals during service; although the Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents has not yet been established based on his service an electrician in the Operations and Maintenance Branch at Ubon Airfield in Thailand from June 1968 to June 1969, further development may help establish such exposure. See Jan. 2018 Military Personnel Record, p. 27; see also March 2018 Correspondence (asserting service near the perimeter at Ubon RTAFB and exposure to chemicals). Lastly, the evidence of record meets the low threshold of an association to service. See id.; 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The Board finds that an examination and opinion would be of considerable assistance to the Board in determining whether the Veteran's peripheral neuropathy is associated with service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct any further development necessary, including obtaining further details from the Veteran, if necessary, to determine the Veteran's service near the perimeter at Ubon RTAFB or to determine the extent of exposure to other chemicals. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the legs. Any indicated evaluations, studies, or tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished. The entire claims file, to include a complete copy of this REMAND, should be made available to the examiner designated to provide an opinion and the examination report should include a discussion of the Veteran's documented medical history and assertions. The examiner must address the following: (a.) Determine whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy of either leg. (b.) For each leg diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy, determine whether it is at least likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the condition is related to the Veteran's active duty service, to include "shocks" during service as an electrician, and if supported by evidence gained through further development above, exposure to herbicide agents and other chemicals. See Mar 2018 Statement in Support of Claim; Mar 2018 Correspondence. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions. The examiner must provide rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Watkins, 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.