Citation Nr: 21025768 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 12-16 948 DATE: April 28, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for basal cell and squamous cell, claimed as due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent, is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for acute bronchitis, claimed as due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent, is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for pulmonary crystals of the lung, claimed as due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. FINDING OF FACT In December 2019, the Veteran submitted a signed statement requesting to withdraw his appeals to establish service connection for basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma due to herbicide exposure and service connection for acute bronchitis due to herbicide exposure. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The appeal to establish service connection for basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma due to herbicide exposure has been withdrawn. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The appeal to establish service connection for acute bronchitis due to herbicide exposure has been withdrawn. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1967 to June 1970 with active service in the Republic of Vietnam. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from February 2010 and March 2018 rating decisions. The claim for service connection for basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma due to herbicide exposure was previously before the Board in August 2014, and the above claims were all previously before the Board in December 2019. 1. Entitlement to service connection for basal cell and squamous cell, claimed as due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent, is dismissed. 2. Entitlement to service connection for acute bronchitis, claimed as due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent, is dismissed. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all the issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by their authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. In December 2019, the Veteran submitted a signed statement requesting to withdraw his claims for service connection for basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma due to herbicide exposure and service connection for acute bronchitis due to herbicide exposure. Accordingly, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration regarding these issues. The Board does not have jurisdiction to review these issues, and dismissal is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for pulmonary crystals of the lung, claimed as due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent, is remanded. Consequent to the Board’s December 2019 remand, the Veteran was provided a VA examination in connection with this appealed issue, which included the completion of a chest x-ray which showed “a tiny granuloma in the right midlung and possibly the right lung base,” in February 2020. After completing a physical examination of the Veteran and reviewing the complete file, including the February 2020 chest x-ray, the VA examiner found stated that the evidence showed no pulmonary crystals and determined there to be no diagnosis of pulmonary crystals of the lung. On closer review of the February 2020 VA examination report, the Board observes that the above-noted inconsistency is due to the February 2020 reliance and interpretation of a chest x-ray completed in February 2019 – one year earlier. In light of this inadequacy, a remand is required for additional medical examination and opinions regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s lung pathology noted upon February 2020 x-ray testing. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. Finally, the Board finds the claim for a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the claim for service connection for pulmonary crystals of the lung because the criteria for a TDIU are dependent, in part, on any future service-connected disability rating for pulmonary crystals of the lung. Thus, the Board must refer readjudication at this time. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ must obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and any outstanding private medical records identified by the Veteran as pertinent to his claim. 2. The AOJ must obtain an addendum opinion to determine the nature and etiology of any current pulmonary crystals of the lungs. The Board leaves it to the discretion of the clinician as to whether the Veteran needs to be reexamined or whether additional chest imaging should be obtained. The examiner is to be provided access to all VBMS and Virtual VA/Legacy files. The examiner must specify in the report that these records have been reviewed and is asked to answer the following questions: (a.) Whether chest imaging from February 2020 shows pulmonary crystals as the following was noted and highlighted: “There is a tiny granuloma in the right midlung and possibly the right lung base”? Why or why not? (b.) If the answer to (a.) is yes, for any diagnosed pulmonary crystals of the lungs, is it at least as likely as not the disorder was incurred in or otherwise related to service to include the Veteran’s assertions that his pulmonary crystals of the lung developed due to exposure to Agent Orange and other chemicals during his military service in the Republic of Vietnam. A complete and fully explanatory rationale must be provided for any opinion offered. If any opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts, or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner, i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training. SCOTT W. DALE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Denton, Buck 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.