Citation Nr: A21019189 Decision Date: 12/02/21 Archive Date: 12/02/21 DOCKET NO. 200528-90127 DATE: December 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for myelodysplasia (claimed as leukemia) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Air Force from July 1968 to May 1972. The Veteran died in March 2014. The appellant is the Veteran's surviving spouse. By way of history, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for myelodysplasia in December 2013. The claim was denied in a March 2014 rating decision. In conjunction with filing a Notice of Disagreement in August 2014, the appellant filed a request for substitution. She was recognized as a valid substitute in May 2019. On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55 (to be codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). This law creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. The matter comes to the Board from an April 2020 rating decision. The appellant filed a VA Form 10182 in May 2020 requesting a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. The appellant appeared before the undersigned at a March 2021 Board hearing. Accordingly, the Board's review is based on the evidence of record at the April 2020 rating decision and 90 days after the Board hearing. See 39 C.F.R. § 20.301. The Appellant contends the Veteran developed myelodysplasia due to his exposure to Agent Orange. At the outset, the Board wants to address evidence submitted outside the evidence window, specifically the letter from Dr. D. S. This letter was submitted February 18, 2021 and March 5, 2021, both dates lie outside the evidence window. This evidence was added to the claims file during a period of time when new evidence was not allowed and may not be considered in this decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. However, as the Board is remanding the claim of entitlement to service connection for myelodysplasia for further development, this additional evidence will be considered by the RO in the adjudication of those claims. The Veteran's records clearly note a diagnosis of myelodysplasia, and he indicated on this application for benefits that he believed his myelodysplasia was related to his exposure to herbicide agents (Agent Orange). The Veteran has confirmed service in Vietnam and his exposure to herbicide agents is presumed. Given the possible links between the diagnosed condition and the presumed exposure to Agent Orange, the AOJ committed a pre-decisional error by failing to secure a medical opinion addressing the nature and etiology of the Veteran's myelodysplasia. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (a); DeLaRosa v. Peake, 515 F.3d 1319, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Wood v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: The AOJ should refer the claims file to a suitably qualified VA examiner for a medical opinion to address the nature and etiology of the Veteran's myelodysplasia. Specifically, whether it is as least likely as not that the Veteran's diagnosed myelodysplasia had its initial onset in service or within a year of service discharge or was otherwise etiologically related to his active service The examiner should specifically address the contention the Veteran developed myelodysplasia as a result of his presumed exposure to herbicide agents such as Agent Orange. The entire claims file should be reviewed, and all opinions and rationale should be clearly explained. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Rekowski 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.