Citation Nr: 21013287 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 16-36 907 DATE: March 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for appendix removal has been withdrawn. Entitlement to service connection for gall bladder removal has been withdrawn. Entitlement to service connection for a vision disorder has been withdrawn. Entitlement to service connection for body sweats has been withdrawn. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for Meniere’s disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for colon cancer (also claimed as partial colon/intestinal removal) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for testicular cancer and removal is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for Barrett’s esophagus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right foot peripheral neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left foot peripheral neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right hand peripheral neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left hand peripheral neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for malaise is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for neck surgery broken vertebra is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for irritable bowel syndrome is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for subcutaneous cell carcinoma is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. During a July 2020 Board hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran requested to withdraw the appeal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for appendix removal. 2. During a July 2020 Board hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran requested to withdraw the appeal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for gall bladder removal. 3. During a July 2020 Board hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran requested to withdraw the appeal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for a vision disorder. 4. During a July 2020 Board hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran requested to withdraw the appeal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for body sweats. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for appendix removal have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for gall bladder removal the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for a vision disorder by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 4. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for body sweats by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from April 1972 to January 1974. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified during a July 2015 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims record. Dismissal The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. Withdrawal may be made by the Veteran or by his or her authorized representative. In the present case, the Veteran withdrew the issues of entitlement to service connection for appendix removal, gall bladder removal, a vision disorder, and body sweats, on record at the July 2020 hearing. As such, the Veteran has withdrawn his appeals for service connection for these issues, and the issues are dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for hearing loss, Meniere’s disease, and tinnitus due to noise exposure during service. The Veteran testified he has experienced ringing in his ears since his period of active duty service. Further, at the hearing the Veteran’s wife testified that his tinnitus started first, and then was diagnosed with Meniere’s disease and underwent surgery in 1998. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for hearing loss and tinnitus in February 2016. The examiner opined it was less likely than not that both the Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus was related to service because these were cause by Meniere’s disease. However, the Veteran is also claiming that his Meniere’s disease is related to service and has testified that the tinnitus began prior to the Meniere’s disease. Accordingly, given the inconsistencies between the Veteran’s contentions and the conclusions of the VA examiner regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s hearing-related disabilities, the Veteran should be afforded new VA examinations for his hearing loss, tinnitus, and Meniere’s disease. The Veteran contends that he has experienced numerous medical disorders, including behavioral, musculoskeletal, and of the liver and central nervous system, were due to exposure to Agent Orange while in service, specifically in Okinawa and the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ). See June 2016 correspondence from Veteran. In June 2020, the Veteran submitted an opinion from a private physician that opined it was more likely than not that the Veteran’s various symptoms are attributable to this in-service herbicide exposure. The Veteran’s November 1997 treatment records from the University of Utah Neuropsychiatric Institute reflect that the Veteran “appears to have some sort of chemical poisoning of unknown etiology that thus far has eluded specialists.” However, the Veteran’s military records do not document exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicide agent during his period of service. Notably, the Veteran’s entry into service in 1972 occurred after period from September 1, 1967 to August 31, 1971, during which period exposure to Agent Orange was presumed for any soldier serving near the Korean DMZ. However, given the medical evidence of potential poisoning and that the Veteran has provided the approximate dates of the asserted exposure, as well as the location and nature of such exposure, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should perform further development to attempt to verify such exposure. If the AOJ is unable to confirm that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides or other potential contaminants during his period of service, then such information is to be submitted to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) to determine whether such exposure can be verified. If the JSRRC is unable to verify the exposure, the case must be referred to the JSRRC coordinator to make a formal finding that sufficient information required to verify herbicide exposure does not exist.   The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify any outstanding treatment records and obtain any identified records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination. Audiometric testing should be completed and any bilateral hearing loss disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 should be noted. A Maryland CNC speech recognition test must be completed. Then, the examiner must provide the following medical opinions: (a.) Whether the Veteran has or has previously had any diagnosis of hearing loss disorder, tinnitus and/or Meniere’s disease. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any diagnosed hearing loss disorder, tinnitus or Meniere’s disease was incurred in or otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s active duty service, to include as a result of noise exposure Adequate reasons and bases for any opinion rendered must be provided. The claims file should be made available to the examiner, who should review the entire claims folder in conjunction with this examination. The Veteran’s lay contentions, including his testimony during the July 2020 Board hearing, should be considered and addressed.   3. Ask the Veteran to provide additional details about his reported exposure to herbicide agents. The AOJ should attempt to verify exposure to herbicide agents with Compensation Services and the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC). If there is still insufficient information to verify exposure to herbicide agents, issue a Formal Finding outlining the steps taken to assist the Veteran and notify the Veteran of VA’s inability to verify the in-service herbicide agent exposure. 4. If, and only if, the Veteran is determined to have been exposed to herbicides or other contaminants in service, arrange for the Veteran to be examined by appropriate clinicians to determine the nature and etiology Veteran’s claimed disabilities currently on appeal. 5. Thereafter, readjudicate the claims on appeal with consideration of all evidence of record. If any benefit sought in connection with the claims remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be provided with a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and given the opportunity to respond. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Keogh, 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.