Citation Nr: 21005973 Decision Date: 02/03/21 Archive Date: 02/03/21 DOCKET NO. 09-18 371 DATE: February 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for vision problems, to include as secondary to radiation exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a stroke, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot rash (tinea cruris), to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of tumors (lipomas), to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for loss of sense of smell, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for multiple joint and bone pain, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for cardiomyopathy, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right hand numbness, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1960 to October 1963. In June 2015, the Board issued a decision denying the Veteran’s claims for service connection. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In November 2016, the Court issued a Memorandum Decision which vacated and remanded the June 2015 Board decision. In September 2017 and December 2018, the Board remanded the appeal to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to obtain VA examinations and review of the case by the Under Secretary for Benefits. The appeal has now been returned to the Board for further adjudication. 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for vision problems, to include as secondary to radiation exposure, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a stroke, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot rash (tinea cruris), to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of tumors (lipomas), to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for loss of sense of smell, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. 7. Entitlement to service connection for multiple joint and bone pain, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. 8. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. 9. Entitlement to service connection for cardiomyopathy, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. 10. Entitlement to service connection for right hand numbness, to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. In February 2018, the AOJ obtained an expert report regarding the Veteran’s in-service radiation exposure from Mr. S.R., Chief, Radioactive Materials and Licensing (Chief). The Chief noted the following in paragraph 12 of that report: Our office can provide a more detailed dose assessment for the [V]eteran, which includes time-separation distance considerations. This effort would require more information from the [V]eteran. However, based on the [V]eteran’s duties, training, and statements, and types of nuclear weapons potentially deployed to his locations, it is our expectation that the [V]eteran’s exposure will only be around 100 mrem. Your office has already noted the expectation for exposures of this magnitude in this Veteran’s case. 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(ii), regarding referral to an independent expert, provides for consideration of a dose estimate from a “credible source” if prepared by a person certified by an appropriate professional body in the field of health physics, nuclear medicine or radiology and if based on an analysis of the facts and circumstances of a particular claim. As the Chief in the February 2018 expert report noted that a more detailed dose assessment could be provided with more information from the Veteran, the Veteran and his attorney are invited to provide a more detailed statement regarding the Veteran’s duties, training, and statements, and types of nuclear weapons potentially deployed to his locations. Additionally, the Veteran and his representative are invited to submit evidence from a credible source as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(3)(ii). Upon receipt of such additional statements by the Veteran and/or evidence from a credible source, the AOJ should obtain an additional dose assessment from the Chief who provided the February 2018 expert report or another credible source as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(3)(ii). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain VA treatment records since October 2020 and associate them with the claims file. 2. Send the Veteran and his representative a letter inviting the Veteran to provide the following: (a) a detailed Veteran statement of the Veteran’s duties, training, and statements, and types of nuclear weapons potentially deployed to his locations for this entire period of service (e.g., number of hours and days working on each specific weapon claimed to have exposed him to ionizing radiation and any other time-separation information to be considered by the Chief, Radioactive Materials and Licensing); and any other details relevant to the Veteran’s in-service radiation exposure (see Paragraph 12, February 2018 Expert Radiation Exposure Memorandum); and (b) any additional evidence from a credible source as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(3)(ii). All attempts to obtain this information should be documented in the claims folder. 3. Once any such evidence is provided, the AOJ should, if possible, refer such information to Mr. S.R., Chief, Radioactive Materials and Licensing, or another credible source as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(3)(ii), for a more detailed dose assessment for the Veteran, as indicated in Paragraph 12 of the February 2018 Expert Radiation Exposure Memorandum. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Howell, 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.