Citation Nr: 21027835 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/06/21 DOCKET NO. 13-35 102 DATE: May 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1966 to January 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board issued a decision on the matter in February 2019. The Veteran appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) and, in October 2019, both parties filed a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) in which they requested that the Court vacate the Board's February 2019 decision and remand for action consistent with the JMR's terms. The Court granted the motion later in October 2019, and the Board remanded the matter in March 2020 per the JMR's terms. The March 2020 remand, which found the Veteran's January 2018 VA examination to be inadequate in line with the terms of the JMR, directed the RO to (1) take all appropriate action to verify the Veteran's herbicide agent exposure while stationed in Thailand, and (2) schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his skin disorder and for an opinion as to whether his skin disorder is related to service. Per the March 2020 remand directives, the RO attempted to schedule a VA examination multiple times, but in May 2020 and January 2021, the Veteran cancelled each appointment, indicating initially that he was recovering from open heart surgery and later that he did not wish to drive 34 miles to the appointment. See July 2020 Email Correspondence; Exam Scheduling Request Clarification Response. With each cancellation, the Veteran requested the RO to use evidence of his past records. Following the Veteran's January 2021 cancellation, the RO issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), detailing that because he failed to report to his examination, his claim is rated based on the evidence of the record, which remains insufficient to grant. The Veteran's representative, Disabled American Veterans (DAV), filed an IHP in April 2021, requesting that the Veteran be given another opportunity for a new VA examination. But, the Veteran has clearly indicated on two occasions that he wishes the RO to use evidence of his past records to review the case. The Board notes that the duty to assist a claimant is not a one-way street, and in the instant case, the Veteran has failed to cooperate to the full extent in the development of his claim. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 406 (1991). Because the Veteran was given ample notification that he would be scheduled for examinations and he cancelled each of these examinations, the Board will not schedule the Veteran for a new VA examination. Remand is necessary, though, to obtain an addendum medical opinion on the Veteran's skin disorder. The Veteran was afforded three VA skin examinations in August 2011, October 2015, and January 2018. The Board found the Veteran's August 2011 VA examination inadequate in its July 2015 decision, noting the VA examiner failed to address the Veteran's herbicide exposure contentions. Although the Veteran was afforded a second VA skin examination in October 2015 as directed, the Board found that a third VA skin examination was necessary in its November 2017 remand, noting that service treatment records that may corroborate the Veteran's claim may be missing. Following the Veteran's third VA skin examination in January 2018, the parties agreed that the examination was inadequate because it was conclusory and lacked rationale in the October 2019 JMR. Because there is no adequate VA skin examination or opinion associated with the claims file, the Board must unfortunately again remand this matter, in part, for an addendum medical opinion that fully addresses the Veteran's contentions and the evidence of record. In addition, as noted above, the March 2020 remand also directed the RO to verify, if possible, the Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand. The Board instructed the RO to verify whether the Veteran's MOS duties in Avionics Maintenance placed him near the base perimeter of U-Tapao Air Base and to associate a formal finding on this issue with the Veteran's claims file. Unfortunately, the RO did not document its attempts, if any, to verify the Veteran's herbicide agent exposure, did not associate any formal finding with the claims file, and did not detail any development of this issue in the January 2021 SSOC. Thus there has not been substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives, and further remand is also necessary as to verification of the Veteran's herbicide agent contentions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). However, the Board notes additional military records were received after the SSOC. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Take all appropriate action to verify, if possible, the Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents while stationed at U-Tapao Air Base, Thailand, in 1968 and 1969, to include whether his MOS duties in Avionics Maintenance placed him near the base perimeter. A formal finding should be associated with the Veteran's claims file. 2. DO NOT PROCEED TO THE FOLLOWING until a formal finding has been made on the above-mentioned contention of herbicide agent exposure while in service. 3. Forward the claims file to the examiner who issued the January 2018 medical opinion, or another appropriate examiner if they are unavailable. After a complete review of the claims file, the examiner should respond to the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not that the diagnosed skin condition began in or was otherwise caused by the Veteran's active duty service, to include herbicide agent exposure (if verified)? (b.) The examiner must consider the Veteran's service treatment records and post-service treatment records, including the August 2011 correspondence from Dr. P.B. indicating that he treated the Veteran for a skin disorder in the 1970s. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Tierno 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.