Citation Nr: 21076809 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-45 426 DATE: December 27, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's Disease, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, trichloroethylene (TEC), and perchloroethylene (PERC), and other contaminants is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active-duty service with the United States Air Force from June 1968 to May 1989. The Board acknowledges the lengthy service of the Veteran. This matter is before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) from the rating decisions of January 2013 and April 2015 of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for Parkinson's disease, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, TEC, PERC, and other contaminants. The Board remanded the Veteran's claim for service connection for Parkinson's in April 2019. The Board in the April 2019 remand determined the January 2013 rating decision was not final and the issue on appeal stemmed from this rating decision. The April 2019 Board remand also directed a formal finding as to the Veteran's allegations of exposure to herbicides while working with C-123 aircraft was to be provided and a medical opinion was needed that addressed the Veteran's claim of Parkinson's disease due to exposure to herbicides and other contaminants and chemicals. Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's Disease, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, TEC, PERC, and other contaminants The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for Parkinson's disease due to exposure to herbicide agents, TEC, PERC, and other contaminants. A review of the claims file reveals there are outstanding personnel records of the Veteran. The VA has a duty to assist Veterans in obtaining records. In particular, the VA will make as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant records from a Federal department or agency. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The VA also has the duty to notify the Veteran if they are reasonably certain that records do not exist or further attempts to find them would be futile. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)(1). In this claim the Board notes there are personnel records missing such as performance evaluations from most of the 1970s, documentation of the Veteran's assignments, and his DD-214 Separation Form indicated for the period from 1968 to 1983. While the Board notes a Personnel Information Exchange System (PIES) record request, this was focused on the Veteran's possible exposure to herbicide agents and not for the Veteran's full personnel records. The Board remand also directed a request sent to JSRRC or appropriate facility for verification of the Veteran's possible herbicide exposure while working with C-123 aircraft. The response provided indicated the Military Records Research Center did not research exposure to these environmental hazards and provided no formal finding as directed. The Board notes the Veteran was stationed at Clark Air Force Base (AFB) in the Philippines from 1969 to 1970 as part of the 6200th Field Maintenance Squadron. However, it is unclear from the provided personnel records in the Veteran's file whether the Veteran had duty involving regular operation and/or maintenance of C-123s during his duty at Clark AFB Philippines. The Board also notes that effective March 23, 2001, the Joint Services Record Research Center (JSRRC) no longer exists. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. As such VA has a duty to contact the appropriate source to verify the Veteran's reports of exposure to both herbicide agents and exposure to chemicals and contaminants. Pursuant to the April 2019 Board remand a medical opinion was provided in March 2020, however, the Board finds the medical opinion to be wholly inadequate for VA purposes. The examiner was directed to discuss the Veteran's reports of exposure to TEC, PERC and other contaminants and chemicals used in performing maintenance on aerospace ground equipment, the Veteran's primary military occupation. The examiner was also directed to discuss the articles submitted by the Veteran and the September 2015 private doctor opinion of Dr. R.H., which found that the Veteran was "likely" exposure to chemicals such as TEC and PERC in his position as ground equipment superintendent, and that "increasing clinical evidence" garnered from the Gulf War indicates that many personnel exposed to a range of environmental hazards are at a higher risk for neurodegenerative disorders. The medical opinion concluded the Veteran's Parkinson's disease was not related to service nor his exposure to TEC, PERC, and other contaminants. The examiner noted that the contaminants indicated are not presumed or noted in literature to cause Parkinson's disease. However, in the same opinion the examiner indicated that the studies noted by the private doctor in the September 2015 opinion that indicated these chemicals may contribute to Parkinson's disease were found not to reach the "more likely than not" threshold. The examiner determined that "TEC and PERC as well as aerospace ground equipment materials are not similar to the clinical evidence garnered from the Gulf War." The examiner also indicated the private doctor opinion from Dr. R.H. presumed Agent Orange exposure which the examiner determined was not demonstrated by the evidence of record. However, with this opinion the Board notes the Veteran's personnel records are incomplete. Although regrettable, additional remand is required for full compliance with the Board's previous remand instructions. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270-71 (1998). This matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Take all appropriate actions to attempt to obtain missing personnel records for active duty of the Veteran. The Board notes the Veteran had service at Clark AFB Philippines in 1969 to 1970. However, with the Veteran's personnel records as provided it is unclear if the Veteran had a duty involving regular operation and/or maintenance of C-123s and exposure to herbicide agents, or other contaminants. All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). Once the above development is completed, attempt to verify the Veteran's alleged exposure to herbicide agents and chemicals and contaminants during active service, to include whether the 6200th Field Maintenance Squadron at Clark AFB was permanently assigned a C-123 aircraft at any point between 1969 and 1970. If there is still insufficient information to verify exposure, issue a Formal Finding outlining the steps taken and notify the Veteran and his representative. 2. After the above development, the Veteran's claims file should be forwarded to an appropriate examiner for an addendum medical opinion, with a different examiner than the examiner who provided the March 2020 medical opinion, regarding the nature and etiology of his Parkinson's disease. The Veteran's claims file and a copy of this remand must be provided to the examiner for review and the examination report should reflect that these items were available for review. Opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's diagnosed Parkinson's disease is causally or etiologically related to the Veteran's military service. The examiner must discuss the Veteran's reported exposure to herbicide agents, TEC, PERC, or other chemicals and contaminants used to perform maintenance on aerospace ground equipment. The examiner must discuss the articles and September 2015 private opinion of Dr. R.H. submitted by the Veteran. The examiner must address the relevant lay statements and articles provided by the Veteran, to include articles submitted in February 2017 and August 2021. A complete rationale must be provided for any and all opinions offered. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is the case and identify what, if any, additional evidence, or information might allow for a more definitive opinion. 3. Following completion of the foregoing, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should review the record, perform any necessary development, and readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the appeal is denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), afford the Appellant and his representative an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. Rebecca N. Poulson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C.A. Teich, 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.