Citation Nr: 21009896 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/23/21 DOCKET NO. 15-01 685A DATE: February 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. In a July 2014 VA examination, the VA examiner opine that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus was less likely than not the result of active service. The rationale provided was that “an isolated, single finding of protein in the urine is not a definitive finding diagnosing diabetes.” The examiner noted that there could be various causes for findings of protein in the urine, and that it is a “non-specific finding.” When VA obtains an examination or opinion, the examination or opinion must be adequate.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). The examiner did not address the Veteran’s lay statements regarding continuity of symptomatology since service. The Veteran stated that the January 2012 VA examiner noted that he reported had diabetes ten years prior to the examination. The examiner did not address that contention in the rationale. Therefore, further opinion is necessary. The Board also notes that the Veteran’s separation examination from service is not of record. The Veteran contends that he participated in a separation examination and that record would support the claim. On remand, the Agency of Jurisdiction (AOJ) should obtain any missing service medical records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the appropriate facility and attempt to obtain any potentially missing service medical records, to specifically include a service separation examination report. If missing service medical records are not available, or the search for any such records yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. Efforts to obtain any missing service medical records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. 2. If it is determined that there are missing service medical records for the Veteran’s period of service and they are not secured, send a corrective notice letter notifying the Veteran that he can submit alternative sources or evidence in place of the Veteran’s missing service treatment records. 3. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination of diabetes mellitus. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions offered. The examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that diabetes mellitus is related to service, including findings of protein in the urine during service. The July 2014 examiner noted that the finding of protein in the urine ins service were a non-specific finding. However, the opinion requested is whether those findings of protein in the urine during service at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) represented a manifestation of or led to the manifestation of diabetes mellitus in the Veteran, who was subsequently diagnosed with diabetes mellitus. The examiner should discuss that contention. In providing the requested opinion, the examiner must consider the Veteran’s description of symptoms during and after service. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the Veteran’s reported symptoms during service and thereafter represented the onset of diabetes mellitus, that should be noted. The examiner specifically opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s reports about his symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible. The examiner should also address the Veteran’s contention that a January 2012 VA treatment record noted the presence of diabetes for over ten years, which overlapped with the Veteran’s period of active service. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Cross, 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.