Citation Nr: 21040923 Decision Date: 07/07/21 Archive Date: 07/07/21 DOCKET NO. 16-11 974 DATE: July 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for dental disability for compensation purposes is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1990 to December 1992. In addition, he had service in the Army National Guard from August 1999 to October 2000, and from November 2000 to May 2001. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a May 2013 rating decision of a Regional Office of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), which is the agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran expressed disagreement with this determination in a timely manner, and the present appeal ensued. The Veteran's appeal was previously before the Board in September 2018, when it was determined that remand was necessary to ensure that VA fulfilled its duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating his appeal. The Board's prior remand directives and the subsequent actions of the AOJ will be discussed below. The Veteran's appeal has been returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. Entitlement to service connection for dental disability for compensation purposes is remanded. Pursuant to the Board's September 2018 remand, the Veteran was provided a VA examination in June 2019. The examiner noted that the Veteran was diagnosed with caries and five fractured teeth with retained roots. The examiner wrote that "[n]o relationship can be established between dental state and any other factor other than tooth trauma-not chemical/radiation/medical." The Board finds the June 2019 VA opinions to be inadequate for the purpose of readjudicating the Veteran's appeal. Specifically, the examiner did not provide a complete rationale to support the conclusion or completely address the question presented in the Board's remand directive as to whether the Veteran's condition is at least as likely as not related to poor diet, hygiene, lack of proper medical treatment and sleep in service. For these reasons, the Board finds that the June 2019 opinion is inadequate, and it did not substantially comply with the remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Therefore, a remand is necessary before the appeal can be readjudicated. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ must transfer the Veteran's electronic file to an appropriate VA clinician to obtain a medical opinion regarding the claimed dental disability. A new examination is not necessary unless requested by the examiner. After reviewing the file in its entirety, the examiner should answer the following question: Are any of the Veteran's dental disabilities least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) related to his military service? The examiner should consider and address the Veteran's contention that his current dental condition is related to exposure to asbestos or chemicals, while working on the USS Detroit, as well as poor diet, hygiene and not being able to get proper medical treatment and sleep in service. In addition, the examiner should consider the dental restorations performed on the Veteran in boot camp in 1990 and comment on whether the current dental condition is related to such treatment. Explanations for all opinions must be provided. In providing the requested rationale, the examiner is asked to cite to the pertinent evidence of record, including clinical records and the Veteran's statements regarding the onset of his symptoms. 2. Thereafter, the AOJ must readjudicate the Veteran's appealed issue in light of the totality of evidence of record. If any benefit sought is not granted to the fullest extent, the AOJ must provide the Veteran with a copy of the readjudication and afford him an appropriate period to respond. SCOTT W. DALE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Solomon 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.