Citation Nr: 21032160 Decision Date: 05/26/21 Archive Date: 05/26/21 DOCKET NO. 16-29 915 DATE: May 26, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides, is remanded. Service connection for Barrett's esophagus, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides, is remanded. Service connection for diabetes, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides, is remanded. Service connection for hypertension, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides, is remanded. Service connection for chronic sinusitis, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides, is remanded. Service connection for obstructive sleep apnea, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1966 to April 1968. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO). The Veteran's notice of disagreement was received in November 2015. The RO issued a Statement of the Case in April 2016. The Veteran's Appeal To Board Of Veterans' Appeals (VA Form 9) was received in June 2016. In October 2018, the Board remanded the case to the RO for further development and adjudicative action. 1. Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides. 2. Entitlement to service connection for Barrett's esophagus, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides. 3. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides. 4. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides. 5. Entitlement to service connection for chronic sinusitis, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides. 6. Entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides. In the June 2016 VA Form 9, the Veteran indicated that Dr. Cook, his private treating physician, had told him that his asserted disabilities were all connected and inter-related. As such, in its October 2018 remand, the Board directed that the RO specifically ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for Dr. Cook and any other facility or provider having relevant medical records. The RO was further directed to make two requests for the authorized records unless it was clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. Thereafter, in correspondence to the Veteran dated in July 2019, the RO requested that the Veteran provide authorization to obtain medical records from his private medical care providers, to specifically include Dr. Dunteman (regarding a left shoulder disability). There was no correspondence directed to the Veteran regarding records from Dr. Cook. In a September 2020 Appellant's Post-Remand Brief, the Veteran's representative, in part, referenced the RO's incorrect July 2019 development letter. A remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). As the RO did not comply with the Board's October 2018 remand instructions, this matter must be remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for Dr. Cook and any other facility or provider having relevant medical records. Make two requests for the authorized records unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. Thereafter, obtain and associate with the claims file any identified private treatment records. If a negative response is received from the Veteran, such should be associated with the claims file. Z. SAHRAIE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Orfanoudis, 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.