Citation Nr: 21024804 Decision Date: 04/26/21 Archive Date: 04/26/21 DOCKET NO. 16-55 247 DATE: April 26, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having been submitted, the claim of entitlement to service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is reopened. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for COPD is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A June 2011 rating decision denied service connection for COPD. The Veteran did not appeal and no new and material evidence was submitted within one year of the June 2011 rating decision. 2. At the time of the June 2011 rating decision, the record did not contain evidence showing a nexus to service. Subsequent to that decision, the Veteran provided additional argument, statements, and testimony. This evidence is new and material and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for COPD. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156, 20.302. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1970 to November 1971, including combat and overseas service in Vietnam. See DD Form 214; service personnel records (SPRs). The Veteran appeals a July 2015 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In the September 2016 statement of the case (SOC), the AOJ additionally denied service connection for tinnitus and sleep apnea. In November 2016, the AOJ received the Veteran’s VA Form 9, which indicated he only wished to appeal the denial of service connection for COPD. Accordingly, the Board finds the Veteran did not perfect an appeal as to the two other issues and thus, those issues are not currently before the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.202. Nevertheless, service connection for tinnitus and sleep apnea was granted in a June 2018 rating decision. The Veteran variously contends his COPD is due to exposure to Agent Orange and ash, chemicals, and smoke due to an explosion and fire while in Vietnam. See March 2011 VA Form 21-526; September 2014 VA Form 21-526b; November 2016 VA Form 9. The Veteran also contends his COPD is secondary to his service connected coronary artery disease (CAD), obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and/or hypertension. See February 2021 Board Hearing Tr. at 3. Overall, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination and no etiology opinion has been rendered. As such, remand is required to obtain the requisite examination and opinions. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA and/or private treatment records relevant to treatment the Veteran received for his COPD that are not already of record. All obtained records should be associated with the evidentiary record. If any identified records are not obtainable (or none exist), the Veteran and his representative should be notified, and the record clearly documented. 2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his COPD. The evidentiary record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. After the record review and examination of the Veteran, the examiner is asked to respond to the following inquiries: Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s COPD was incurred in, or otherwise related, to his time on active service, to include in-service exposure to herbicide agents and/or ash, chemicals, and smoke from a fire? Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s COPD was CAUSED by his service-connected CAD? Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s COPD was AGGRAVATED by his service-connected CAD? Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s COPD was CAUSED by his service-connected OSA? Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s COPD was AGGRAVATED by his service-connected OSA? Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s COPD was CAUSED by his service-connected hypertension? Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s COPD was AGGRAVATED by his service-connected hypertension? In rendering these opinions, the examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history. Such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, he or she must provide an explanation for such rejection. The examiner is not to improperly discount the Veteran’s lay statements or mistakenly rely on an absence of medical evidence in the record to support his or her conclusions. A complete rationale for all opinions should be set forth and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the examiner must explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). (Continued on the next page)   3. After the above development has been completed to the extent possible, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and return the case to the Board, if otherwise in order. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Zheng, 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.