Citation Nr: 21014335 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 15-06 263 DATE: March 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a kidney disorder is REMANDED. Entitlement to service connection for squamous and basal cell skin cancer is REMANDED. Entitlement to service connection for chloracne, or another acneform disease, is REMANDED. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability, to include benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), is REMANDED. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the United States Marine Corps from June 1966 to June 1970. The Veteran’s certificate of release from active duty (DD214) reveals that the Veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal and a Vietnam Campaign Medal. These matters are on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision. In November 2018, the Board remanded the appeal for additional evidentiary development. Upon review of the record, the Board concludes that further procedural development is necessary. Entitlement to service connection for a kidney disorder, skin cancer, chloracne, and prostate disabilities is remanded. In July 2013, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-526. Thereby, the Veteran initiated claims for a kidney disorder, skin cancer, chloracne, and prostate disabilities. In November 2018, the Board addressed the issues listed on the title page. At that time, the Board remanded the claims to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional evidentiary development. In July 2020, the AOJ issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) for the issues listed on the title page. After the AOJ issued the SSOC, additional pertinent medical evidence was added to the claim file in July, August, and October 2020. In November 2020 and January 2021, VA notified the Veteran that additional pertinent medical evidence had been associated with the claims file. On each occasion, VA notified the Veteran that he had 45 days to respond to the notices; if a no response was received, the Board would remand the claims for AOJ review of the additional medical evidence. In January 2021, the Veteran responded to the above notification(s), requesting that his claims were sent back to the AOJ for review of the additional, pertinent medical evidence that had been associated with the claims file after issuance of the July 2020 SSOC. The Board observes that additional pertinent medical records have been associated with the Veteran’s electronic claims folder since the AOJ issued the SSOC on July 9, 2020. Since these records were added to the Veteran’s claims file after issuance of the SSOC, and it is clear that the AOJ has not reviewed these records, a SSOC must be furnished to the Veteran and his representative. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31. If the Board were to consider this evidence in the first instance, this potentially could be prejudicial because the Veteran, in effect, would “lose one bite of the apple,” meaning the benefit of one level of judicial review. Cf., Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993). Thus, the Board concludes that the AOJ should have the opportunity to review the additional pertinent government medical records and issue a SSOC. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 (b). The Board may not consider additional evidence not previously reviewed by the AOJ, unless a waiver of initial AOJ review is obtained from the Veteran. Disabled American Veterans, et. al. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (c). In January 2021, the Veteran requested AOJ review of the pertinent medical evidence received after the issuance of the July 2020 SSOC. Consequently, on remand, the AOJ should issue a SSOC that considers all the evidence received since the July 2020 SSOC. Consequently, the matters are REMANDED to the AOJ for the following action: 1. Readjudicate the issues on appeal in light of all the additional evidence added to the record since the July 2020 SSOC. 2. If any of the benefits sought on appeal are denied, the Veteran and his representative should be provided a SSOC. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response before the case is returned to the Board. R.R. Watkins Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Blake, Ronald 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.