Citation Nr: 21005560 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 17-26 977 DATE: February 2, 2021 REMANDED The issue of service connection for sarcoidosis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1997 to November 2000. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2018, the Board denied the issue on appeal. The Veteran appealed the November 2018 denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a November 2019 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), vacating the November 2018 decision to the extent it denied service connection for sarcoidosis. The Veteran contends that sarcoidosis is the result of active service in Korea. See November 2016, Notice of Disagreement (NOD). Service treatment records (STRs) indicate the Veteran complained of and was treated for chest and sinus congestion, constant coughing, mildly sore sternum, pain at the base of the neck, swollen lymph nodes, redness and bulging of the eyes, pain behind the eyes, tender cervical nodes, sinus tenderness, fever, coughing up yellow sputum, and coughing and vomiting phlegm. See STRs dated June 1999, October 1999, and December 1999. VA treatment records indicate sarcoidosis was diagnosed within one year of the Veteran’s discharge from active service. See VA treatment records dated February 2001 and June 2001. The Veteran was not previously afforded a VA examination. The Board, therefore, finds the threshold for obtaining a VA examination has been met. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), accordingly, should obtain an opinion regarding the nature and etiology of sarcoidosis. The Board notes that the claims file has VA treatment records to May 2020. On remand, any previously unobtained ongoing relevant medical records should be procured and associated with the Veteran’s claims file. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding records of VA evaluation and/or treatment records of the Veteran dated since May 2020 and associate them with the claims file. 2. After completing directive #1, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination. Upon complete review of the claims file and physical examination of the Veteran, the examiner should render an opinion as to the following: Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that sarcoidosis, manifested during or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of active service. The examiner should consider and address the service treatment records indicating the Veteran’s complaints of and treatment for: chest and sinus congestion, constant coughing, mildly sore sternum, pain at the base of the neck, swollen lymph nodes, redness and bulging of the eyes, pain behind the eyes, tender cervical nodes, sinus tenderness, fever, coughing up yellow sputum, and coughing and vomiting phlegm. See STRs dated June 1999, October 1999, and December 1999. The Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, experiences, and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports of symptomatology, he or she must provide a reason for doing so. A comprehensive rationale for all opinions must be provided. All pertinent evidence, including both lay and medical, should be considered. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, the examiner must explain why this is so and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts (Continued on next page) are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). JAMES L. MARCH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Straughn, 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.