Citation Nr: 21028969 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-07 972 DATE: May 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease to include as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer to include as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus to include as due to herbicide exposure is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1957 to October 1973. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2019, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims folder. Service connection for ischemic heart disease, prostate cancer, type II diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea, and a respiratory disorder The Veteran testified during the June 2019 Board hearing that he has received private treatment for his claims on appeal. See the June 2019 Board hearing transcript, pgs. 11-18. A review of the record reveals that while some private treatment records have been obtained in connection with these claims, it is unclear as to whether all identified private treatment records have been obtained and the RO has not made an attempt to obtain such. Therefore, the Board finds that on remand, all outstanding private treatment records should be obtained and associated with the claims folder. With respect to the Veteran's claim of service connection for a respiratory disorder, the Veteran contends that he has a respiratory disorder that is related to service to include as due to asbestos exposure from the naval vessels that he served aboard. The Board notes that the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) was an aircraft maintenance foreman and therefore exposure to asbestos would have likely been minimal. However, a service treatment record dated December 1968 documents a finding of an upper respiratory infection and the Veteran was also treated for chest congestion in September 1969. The remainder of the Veteran's service treatment records are absent complaints of or treatment for a respiratory disorder or symptoms associated therewith. Further, the current medical evidence documents treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the Veteran has indicated that its onset was during service. There is no medical opinion of record which indicates whether the Veteran's present claimed respiratory disorder is due to service. Accordingly, the Board finds that an opinion should be obtained on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request the Veteran to provide authorization to obtain any outstanding, relevant medical treatment records, to include records identified during the June 2019 Board hearing. After securing the necessary authorization, these records should be requested. If any records are not available, the Veteran should be notified of such. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his respiratory disorder. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran has a respiratory disorder to include COPD that is related to his service, to include his treatment for an upper respiratory infection in December 1968 and chest congestion in September 1969 as well as the Veteran's report of exposure to asbestos. The examiner must provide a rationale for their opinion. 3. The issue of entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is held in abeyance pending the respiratory examination as that could impact the issue. 4. Review the claims file to ensure that the foregoing requested development is completed and arrange for any additional development indicated. If the benefits sought remain denied, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case to the Veteran and his agent. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Arif Syed, 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.