Citation Nr: 21027805 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/06/21 DOCKET NO. 18-01 651 DATE: May 6, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease (IHD) is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type 2 (diabetes) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from December 1968 to December 1971. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision by a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2020, the Veteran testified in a hearing before the Board. A transcript of the hearing has been included in the electronic claims file and has been reviewed. A remand is warranted for medical examination into the claims. The evidence of record details the nature of the Veteran's service, especially his service in the Republic of Korea between May 1969 and June 1970. However, the evidence is not clear that he has IHD and/or diabetes. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the claims. Include in the claims file outstanding VA treatment records (if any). All records/responses received must be associated with the electronic claims file. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. 2. Schedule an examination. After reviewing the claims file, interviewing the Veteran, and examining him, the examiner should provide a report addressing whether the Veteran has IHD and/or diabetes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (ischemic heart disease includes, but is not limited to, acute, subacute, and old myocardial infarction; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (including coronary spasm) and coronary bypass surgery; and stable, unstable and Prinzmetal's angina). G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher McEntee, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.