Citation Nr: 21030005 Decision Date: 05/17/21 Archive Date: 05/17/21 DOCKET NO. 19-33 036 DATE: May 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy, bilateral lower extremities, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from October 1963 to December 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals ("Board") on appeal from a December 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") Regional Office ("RO"). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a March 2021 Board's hearing. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy, bilateral lower extremities, is remanded. In September 2018, the Veteran filed a claim for entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of bilateral lower extremities and asserted that his claimed condition was due to his exposure to herbicide agents during his active service in Vietnam. At the March 2021 Board's hearing, the Veteran testified that he was exposed to herbicide agents while he was on board the Navy ship, USS John S. McCain (DL-3), which sailed approximately one mile in Vietnam inland river. He asserted that he was within 12 nautical miles territorial sea of Vietnam. The Veteran further testified that he started noticing problems in his legs four months after he was off the coast of Vietnam and received treatment for the condition during his twenties. The Veteran also stated that he was receiving treatment from VA facility in Marina, California and from private doctors. Initially, the Board notes the Veteran's military personnel record indicates that he performed duties on the Navy ship USS, John S. McCain (DL-3), during his active service. However, no development has been completed to confirm if there was exposure to herbicide agents, to include whether the Navy ship, USS John S. McCain (DL 3) entered the Vietnamese waters or was within 12 nautical miles territorial sea of Vietnam during his duty on the ship. Therefore, a remand is warranted to complete this development. Additionally, the Veteran asserts that he has been receiving treatment from private and VA physicians. Therefore, a remand is also warranted to obtain outstanding private and VA medical records. Lastly, the Board notes the August 1966 service treatment record indicates that the Veteran had back problems after a June 1966 auto accident. However, the Veteran has not been afforded any VA medical examination on the nature and etiology of peripheral neuropathy of bilateral lower extremities, and if the claimed condition is related to claimed herbicide exposure or in-service auto accident. The Board finds that there is insufficient medical evidence to decide the claim, therefore a VA examination is warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i). Consequently, a remand is warranted to complete the above described developments. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain outstanding VA and private treatment records. Request the Veteran to identify all sources of treatment received for his claimed condition and provide any authorization necessary for VA to obtain such treatment records. 2. Obtain any available information or documentation to determine whether the Navy ship, USS John S. McCain (DL 3), entered in Vietnamese waters or within 12 nautical miles territorial sea of Vietnam during the Veteran's active duty on the ship. If the RO cannot locate any of these records, it must specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them and explain why further attempts to locate or obtain any government records would be futile. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). 3. After completing the above development, schedule the Veteran for an VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed peripheral neuropathy of bilateral lower extremities. Then, forward the claims file and a copy of this remand to the examiner. 4. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner should address the following: (a) Whether the Veteran currently has any diagnosed condition of peripheral neuropathy of bilateral lower extremities. (b) If the Veteran has diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy of bilateral lower extremities, whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's claimed peripheral neuropathy of bilateral lower extremity had its onset during his period of active service or manifested to a compensable degree within a year after the last date of the claimed exposure to herbicide agents; or related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the claimed in-service exposure to herbicide agents, and/or the June 1966 auto accident. In providing the above opinions, the examiner is advised to address the in-service auto accident and the Veteran's contentions regarding the claimed exposure to herbicide agents noted in documents associated with the claims file with entries dated: (i) 10/15/2018, titled "STR Medical," page number 34, indicating that the Veteran had back problems after the June 1966 in-service auto accident. (ii) 03/31/2021, titled "Hearing Transcript," which contains the Veteran's contentions regarding the claimed in-service exposure to herbicide agents and the Veteran noticing problems in his legs after four months he was off the coast of Vietnam. A complete rationale for the opinions rendered must be provided. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, then the examiner must state this and provide any information needed to make an opinion, if possible. (Continued on the next page) 5. Thereafter, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the benefit sought remains denied, issue the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond before returning the matter to the Board for further appellate review. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Tariq, Nadeem, 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.