Citation Nr: 21075994 Decision Date: 12/22/21 Archive Date: 12/22/21 DOCKET NO. 21-00 814 DATE: December 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for narrowing of the esophagus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral vision loss, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1965 to April 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for narrowing of the esophagus is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral vision loss, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, is remanded. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, hypertension, narrowing of the esophagus, diabetes mellitus, and bilateral vision loss. Specifically, the Veteran contends that his conditions were the result of exposure to herbicides during service at the Panama Canal Zone between August 1965 and April 1967 while stationed at Fort Sherman and Fort Davis. In an October 2015 statement, the Veteran stated that he was in an area of the Panama Canal Zone on the Pacific side called "Rie Hata". He further stated that the growth of the Jungle was severe, and that spraying herbicide was done to allow movement. The Veteran further noted that this was done throughout the duration of his deployment to the Panama Canal Zone from 1965 to 1967. In a July 2019 statement, the Veteran stated that he was rotated between the two bases and that he worked for weeks in the canal, which he claims was sprayed with Agent Orange. The Veteran further reported being treated for a rash in Panama after his claimed exposure. In July 2021, the Military Records Research Center noted that it was unable to research the matter of the Veteran's alleged exposure to herbicides because the circumstances of the exposure were not provided. The Board finds that remand is warranted to address the Veteran's contentions regarding exposure to herbicide agents in Panama. While the Military Records Research Center noted that it was unable to research the matter of the Veteran's alleged exposure to herbicides, it is not clear whether the Veteran's lay statements regarding service in "Rie Hata" or work in the canal were fully considered. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the Veteran's complete period of service at the Panama Canal Zone between August 1965 and April 1967 was fully considered. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify or submit any additional pertinent evidence in support of his claimed in-service exposure to herbicide agents during his service at the Panama Canal Zone between August 1965 to April 1967. Specifically, the Veteran should be asked to provide more detail regarding the circumstances of his claimed exposure to herbicides while and his subsequent treatment in Panama for a rash. The Veteran should be asked to provide dates, locations, and names of persons associated with these events. 2. Thereafter, take the appropriate steps to attempt to verify the Veteran's claimed in-service exposure to herbicide agents during his service at the Panama Canal Zone, including his claimed exposure to herbicides while assigned to 531st Transport Platoon between August 1965 and April 1967, including his service at Fort Sherman and Fort Davis, his claimed service at "Rie Hata", and his claimed work in the canal and subsequent treatment in Panama for a rash. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the decision remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the requisite opportunity to respond. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board David M. Sebstead, 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.