Citation Nr: 21007112 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-01 770 DATE: February 8, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for a left eye ulcer is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1965 to November 1972. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2016, the Veteran submitted a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) in response to the July 2016 rating decision. The matter was remanded by the Board in January 2019 for additional development by the AOJ. The RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in June 2020, continuing the prior denial of service connection for the claim. 1. Service connection for a left eye ulcer is remanded. Despite the regrettable delay, an additional remand is necessary because there was not the required substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Specifically, the February 2019 examiner did not provide the required opinion on direct service connection or whether the Veteran’s eye condition was caused by herbicide agent exposure as requested in the Board's January 2019 remand directives. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all updated records of VA treatment (from June 2019 to present). Then please obtain an addendum medical opinion from the June 2019 eye conditions examiner to determine whether the Veteran’s left eye ulcer is due to service and/or his service-connected diabetes mellitus II. If the June 2019 examiner is not available, please have another appropriate VA examiner review the file and provide the requested opinions. If another examination is deemed necessary, please attempt to schedule the Veteran for an examination at the West Palm Beach VAMC or by video or telephone. Upon review of the entire record, the examiner should provide opinions that respond to the following: (a) Identify (by diagnosis) all left eye disabilities. (b) For each disability diagnosed, is it at least as likely as not (a 50% or better probability) that this condition is related to the Veteran’s service, to include as due to his exposure to herbicide agents?[The examiner is reminded that, although a medical condition may not be on the list of diseases that are presumptively caused by herbicide agent exposure, this does not preclude the possibility that any given condition may have been caused by herbicide agent exposure as established by medical evidence on a case-by-case basis.] (c) If no, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or better probability) that the condition was either caused OR aggravated (the opinion MUST specifically discuss the concept of aggravation, and “aggravation” means the disability increased in severity beyond its natural progression) by the Veteran’s service-connected diabetes mellitus? If aggravation is found, the opinion provider should indicate, to the extent possible, the approximate baseline level of disability before the onset of aggravation. VICTORIA MOSHIASHWILI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M.J. Smith, 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.