Citation Nr: 21006555 Decision Date: 02/04/21 Archive Date: 02/04/21 DOCKET NO. 13-22 854 DATE: February 4, 2021 REMANDED The issue of service connection for prostate cancer as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from May 1963 to February 1968. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. BACKGROUND FOR RO ADJUDICATOR: This is a remand under Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The RO failed to comply with the Board’s May 2018 remand directives. In May 2018 the Board directed the RO to contact the Air Force Historical Research Agency with a copy of the Veteran’s claims file and request a review by an archivist. In addition, the Board remand directed the RO to contact the Department of Air Force directly and request assistance with their research efforts if such efforts with the Air Force Historical Research Agency did not provide any relevant information. While the record reflects four mailings to the Air Force Historical Research Agency, there is no evidence of additional efforts to contact the Department of the Air Force directly, and to request assistance in research efforts, or to conduct any additional research that may produce the requested information to decide the Veteran’s claim. In addition, the October 2020 formal finding indicates that the RO received a negative response in September 2020 from the Air Force Historical Research Agency. However, the September 2020 correspondence appears to be a copy of the request letter. There is no indication of any response, positive or negative, from the Agency on the document in the record. Furthermore, the October 2020 formal finding for herbicide exposure in Thailand states that the information obtained to corroborate exposure to herbicide described by the Veteran “is sufficient” to send to the US Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JRSSC) and/or sufficient to allow for meaningful research of Marine Corps or National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) records. However, the record does not reflect a submission of information to the JRSSC or the Marine Corps or NARA subsequent to the May 2018 Board remand. 2. The RO is directed to comply with the May 2018 Board remand instructions. If such efforts produce a negative response, such a response must be noted in the claims file. If further efforts to obtain information would be futile, such a finding must be made AFTER reasonable efforts have been made to comply with the Board’s directives. 3. Following the review and any additional development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claim. Should the claim not be granted in its entirety, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and forward the claim to the Board for adjudication. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West 2014). Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Anwar, Attorney-Advisor 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.