Citation Nr: 21015863 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 19-00 482A DATE: March 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), to include as due to herbicide agent exposure and/or asbestos exposure is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Navy from October 1957 to September 1961 and the United States Air Force from May 1962 to June 1978, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This case comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board in August 2020, at which time the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim for further development. Entitlement to service connection for COPD, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure and/or asbestos exposure is remanded. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay this will cause, further development is necessary prior to the adjudication of this appeal. First, the RO failed to conduct appropriate development to corroborate the alleged in-service exposure to asbestos as reported by the Veteran. Also, the RO did not enter a formal finding outlining all efforts undertaken. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Specifically, the Veteran asserts that he was exposed to asbestos while he was assigned to the USS Cony from January 1959 to September 1961. During his assignment, he routinely performed ship cleaning and paint chipping duties. See August 2019 Correspondence. Furthermore, in January 2019, the Veteran submitted a letter from a private physician, Dr. M.N. Dr M.N. noted that the Veteran was under his care for breathing difficulties. He reported that the Veteran was exposed to asbestos fibers while working on ships in the Navy in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The private physician opined that exposure to toxic substances might have played a major role in the causation of the Veteran’s current respiratory illnesses. Thus, a remand is warranted for the RO to undertake appropriate development of the Veteran’s asbestos claim, and if it is determined he was exposed, then the RO should get a medical opinion about such. Additionally, the Veteran’s service treatment records also show that it was noted in a February 1978 radiographic report that the Veteran had fibrocalcific residua of previous granulomatous disease. The opinions of record do not address whether the Veteran’s COPD is related his residua of granulomatous disease. A remand is warranted for a new opinion addressing this. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request that the Joint Services Records and Research Center (JSRRC), or any other official source, investigate, research (review official military documents, ship histories, deck logs, and other sources of information) and attempt to verify the Veteran’s exposure to asbestos aboard the Navy Ship USS Cony from January 1959 to September 1961. The JSRRC should determine whether asbestos materials were used on the USS Cony during that time frame. If it is not possible to corroborate the alleged asbestos exposure, the RO should enter a formal finding outlining all efforts undertaken. 2. Obtain a VA addendum opinion regarding the claimed COPD. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be available for review. The VA examiner should address the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s COPD is related to his asbestos exposure aboard the Navy ship (if it is found he was exposed to asbestos)? (b.) Is it at least as likely as not that Veteran’s COPD is related to his diagnosis of residua of granulomatous disease during his service? All opinions must be supported by a sufficient rationale. A negative opinion cannot be solely based on the absence of medical evidence. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Crawford, 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.