Citation Nr: 21012307 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 15-09 744 DATE: March 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease (DJD) of the left arm and ruptured bicep tendon is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right arm fracture is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for accelerated cataracts is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for Meniere's syndrome is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease (also claimed as peripheral artery disease) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a neck condition is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded.   REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1971 to May 1974. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from April 2014 and December 2014 rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2018, a hearing was held before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The case was previously before the Board in April 2019 when it was remanded for further development. The issue of entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) was also remanded by the Board in April 2019 for the issuance of a statement of the case (SOC). An SOC was issued in October 2020, and the Veteran perfected his appeal by filing a timely VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals in December 2020. Service connection-DJD of the left arm and ruptured bicep tendon, residuals of right arm fracture, accelerated cataracts, Meniere's syndrome, coronary artery disease, back condition, and neck condition In the April 2019 remand, the Board directed that the RO take all appropriate steps to verify the Veteran’s alleged radiation exposure during 1971 to 1973 while stationed at Ansbach, Germany (the Veteran has stated that he was deployed to a site referred to as 32-J to perform guard duty). If radiation exposure was confirmed, then steps should be taken to develop the Veteran’s claims pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.311, to include obtaining a dose estimate and an opinion if necessary. The record reflects that the RO requested the Veteran’s service personnel records and made a request through the Personnel Information Exchange System (PIES) in January 2020 for a DD 1141, Record of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation and records of exposure to radiation. The response stated that items were sent to vendor for scanning, but the file reflects that there was a search of items at scanning and it was indicated that no items were listed. The RO then sent a request to the Army Dosimetry Center in August 2020 requesting a DD 1141 or an equivalent record of occupational radiation exposure. The Army Dosimetry Center responded in September 2020, stating that they were unable to locate any records for the Veteran. No further development was conducted. Section 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(2)(iii) pertains to development obligations regarding claims associated with alleged exposure to ionizing radiation. Specifically, this regulation provides that “in all other claims involving radiation exposure, a request will be made for any available records concerning the Veteran’s exposure to radiation.” It does not appear that there was additional attempts to determine if the Veteran’s alleged radiation exposure may be reflected in other documents such as any records from the Veteran’s Army unit, morning reports, etc., which might document his involvement in guard duty in Germany. The RO should contact the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), as well as any other appropriate facilities, to attempt to verify the Veteran’s alleged radiation exposure while deployed to a site referred to as 32-J to perform guard duty near the bunkers on that site. The AOJ should specifically attempt to verify whether there was any risk of radiation exposure while performing guard duty. If such records are unavailable, a formal finding of unavailability should be made and associated with the claims file. As indicated, 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a) requires that a request be made for any available records concerning the Veteran’s exposure to radiation. Then, all such records will be forwarded to the Under Secretary for Health, who will be responsible for preparation of a dose estimate, to the extent feasible, based on available methodologies. 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(2)(iii). On remand, the AOJ will ensure that all proper development has been conducted in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.311. TDIU The Veteran is also seeking entitlement to TDIU. Entitlement to TDIU is dependent on the outcome of the service connection claims being remanded as the Veteran is not currently service connected for any disability. Therefore, the Board also remands the claim for TDIU as inextricably intertwined with the service connection claims. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are “inextricably intertwined” when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision cannot be rendered unless both issues have been considered); Tyrues v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166, 178 (2009). All Issues On remand, the Veteran should be afforded the opportunity to provide any additional evidence, if any, in support of his claims. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify or submit any additional pertinent evidence in support of his claims. Also ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for any additional private treatment, if any. Based on his response, the RO must attempt to procure copies of all records which have not previously been obtained from identified sources. Make two requests for any authorized records, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. Take all appropriate steps, including, if deemed warranted, obtaining any unit records, morning reports, and requesting research by the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), to attempt to corroborate the Veteran’s reports of radiation exposure while stationed in Germany during 1971 to 1973, deployed to a site referred to as 32-J to perform guard duty. All possible steps should be taken to verify the Veteran’s report. All actions taken to attempt to corroborate the Veteran’s reports should be documented in the file.   3. Then take steps to develop the Veteran’s claims pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.311, to include obtaining a dose estimate and a medical opinion, as deemed necessary. The RO is reminded that the Veteran, in addition to other diagnoses, has a diagnosis of posterior subcapsular cataracts, which is a radiogenic disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Bonnie Yoon, 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.