Citation Nr: 21022058 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 16-55 158 DATE: April 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for colon cancer for accrued benefits purposes is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for stomach cancer with metastasis to the spleen, diaphragm, back muscle, and lining of the heart with resection of the small intestine for accrued benefits purposes is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer for accrued benefits purposes is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bladder cancer for accrued benefits purposes is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1967 to September 1971. He died in March 2010. The appellant is his surviving spouse, and a September 2016 Statement of the Case indicated that she was granted substitution to pursue this claim. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2013 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision. Claims for entitlement to service connection for prostate and bladder cancer were previously denied in January 2004. In February 2009, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied a request to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer. In May 2009, a VA memorandum was associated with the claims file which interpreted the contents of the 1973 Department of Defense document, Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report: Base Defense in Thailand, which noted the use of commercial herbicides along the permitter of certain Royal Thai Air Force Bases (RTAFBs). This evidence constitutes a summary of service records which are relevant to the claims for service connection for prostate and bladder cancer which existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claims. The Board will thus reconsider the claims as opposed to requiring new and material evidence to reopen them. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c). Entitlement to service connection for colon, stomach, prostate and bladder cancer for accrued benefits purposes is remanded. The appellant contends that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides during service at the Nakhon Phanom RTAFB. Additionally, in July 2003, the Veteran reported service is Vietnam. Neither the Veteran’s lay statements prior to his death, nor his military personnel records specifically indicate that he had regular duties at or near the Nakhon Phanom RTAFB perimeter, nor do the service records document service in Vietnam. However, the Veteran’s performance evaluations during his service at the Nakhon Phanom RTAFB note that he participated in “many jobs not within his work area” and served on a 6-day temporary duty assignment (TDY) at an unspecified location. The complete military personnel records have not specifically been requested. Given the suggestion that the Veteran served in roles other than his military occupational specialty and at a location other than his permanent duty station, additional efforts must be undertaken to ensure that all the Veteran’s service personnel records have been obtained as well as any records of his period of TDY. Additionally, in a January 2013 correspondence, the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System recommended that VA request information regarding the Veteran’s MOS from the Headquarters, Air Force Personnel Center, 550 C. Street West, Suite 12, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas 78150. The AOJ submitted a request to that address in January 2013. There was no response and the AOJ made no follow-up requests. The AOJ must undertake all necessary development to secure these potentially relevant, identified Federal documents. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the following Federal records: (a.) The Veteran’s complete service personnel records. (b.) Any available TDY orders during the period of service from September 28 through December 1, 1968 with the 456th Munitions Maintenance Squadron. (c.) Any available records pertaining to the duties of a munitions specialist from the Headquarters, Air Force Personnel Center, 550 C. Street West, Suite 12, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas 78150. (Continued on the next page)   2. If the AOJ cannot locate such records, it must specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them and explain in writing why further attempts to locate or obtain any government records would be futile. The AOJ must then: (a) notify the claimant of the specific records that it is unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts VA has made to obtain that evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claims. The claimant must then be given an opportunity to respond. LAURA E. COLLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Paul J. Bametzreider 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.