Citation Nr: 21023643 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-07 275 DATE: April 21, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for an autoimmune disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from August 1965 to May 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing in May 2019. The Board remanded the claim for further development in October 2019. When VA provides an examination for a service-connected claim it must provide an adequate one. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 31112 (2007). In September 2020, the Veteran underwent a VA examination for his autoimmune disorder claim. At his May 2019 hearing the Veteran testified that he was exposed to ionizing radiation while in service. This fact was conceded by VA in the favorable findings in the January 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). The examiner opined that the Veteran’s autoimmune disability is not related to service and based the opinion on there being no diagnosis of an autoimmune disorder in-service. The examiner failed to consider the Veteran’s credible lay statements in providing their opinion, and as such a remand is necessary in order to obtain an addendum opinion.   The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion regarding whether the Veteran’s autoimmune disorder is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) related to the conceded in-service ionizing radiation exposure. The examiner is to consider the Veteran’s lay assertions. The examiner is asked to note the Veteran’s May 2019 hearing testimony regarding his radiation exposure in-service. The rationale for the opinion must be provided. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jorge Barroso, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.