Citation Nr: 21011176 Decision Date: 03/01/21 Archive Date: 03/01/21 DOCKET NO. 20-02 354 DATE: March 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a genitourinary disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a digestive disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a neurological disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 1977 to August 1981. In February 2021, the Veteran presented sworn testimony during a virtual hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability is remanded. The Veteran was afforded a VA contract examination and opinion in September 2019. VA-QTC Skin Diseases examination, September 2019. The examiner concluded that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of dermatitis and that the date of onset was 1979 (during the Veteran’s active duty). However, he then stated that there was no nexus because there were no medical records of such. In light of this apparent contradiction, this claim must be remanded for a new VA examination and opinion. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Additionally, the Veteran testified at his Board hearing that there are outstanding and relevant private treatment records from Dr. A.S. On remand, the Veteran should be asked to identify and provide a release for the private treatment records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). 2. Entitlement to service connection for a genitourinary disability is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. 7. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. 8. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. 9. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is remanded. 10. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. 11. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability is remanded. 12. Entitlement to service connection for a digestive disability is remanded. 13. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. 14. Entitlement to service connection for a neurological disability is remanded. 15. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded. Issues 2-15: The Veteran claims that he currently suffers from these disabilities and that they are related to service. Specifically, he argues that they may be due to contaminated meat and/or wear and tear from the physical strain of service. Therefore, he believes service connection is warranted. The Veteran has not been afforded VA examinations for these disabilities, despite his lay testimony that they exist and have existed since they began in service. Moreover, his assertions of eating contaminated meat in Germany are consistent with his personnel records showing service in Germany and his military occupational specialty and awards in service are consistent with physical strain and exercise. Given his hearing testimony and to fully address his concerns about VA’s duty to assist, the Board finds that VA examinations and opinions are warranted for each of the issues on appeal. Additionally, as noted above, the Veteran testified at his Board hearing that there are outstanding and relevant private treatment records from Dr. A.S. On remand, the Veteran should be asked to identify and provide a release for the private treatment records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Send the Veteran a letter advising him of how to select a representation and how to submit evidence to substantiate his claim. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for his records from Dr. A.S. Make two requests for the authorized records from all identified providers and/or facilities unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 3. Schedule the Veteran for VA examinations to address the nature and etiology of his claimed skin, genitourinary, cervical spine, left foot, left shoulder, right hip, psychiatric, lumbar spine, right foot, left ankle, bilateral eye, digestive, left knee, neurological, and right shoulder disabilities. The examiner must review the entire claims file. The examiner should identify any current disorders relating to the Veteran’s claims. For each such diagnosed disorder, s/he should opine whether it is at least as likely as not that such a disability was incurred in, or otherwise caused by, his military service. The examiner must address the role of possible contaminated meat and/or wear and tear from lifting and carrying heavy backpacks and cannon ammunition. The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean “within the realm of medical possibility.” Rather, it means that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of the conclusion (e.g., etiology) as it is to find against the conclusion. 4. THE AOJ MUST REVIEW THE CLAIMS FILE AND ENSURE THAT THE FOREGOING DEVELOPMENT ACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN FULL. IF ANY DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPLETE, APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION MUST BE IMPLEMENTED. IF ANY REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC OPINIONS REQUESTED, IT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE PROVIDING EXAMINER FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION. [CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE] YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Moore, 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.