Citation Nr: 21041181 Decision Date: 07/08/21 Archive Date: 07/08/21 DOCKET NO. 18-23 041 DATE: July 8, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service in the United States Air Force from July 1985 to December 1992, and January 1, 2002, to January 31, 2002, with additional periods of service in the U.S. Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard. The claim of entitlement to service connection for AML is remanded. The Board notes that a remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, 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). In June 2020, the Board remanded the case and instructed the AOJ to verify the Veteran's duty status during her U.S. Air Force Reserve service from approximately 2000 to 2007. Pursuant to the Board remand, the AOJ obtained additional military personnel records, including the Veteran's retirement points history. Unfortunately, the records do not verify the specific dates of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. Accordingly, a remand is required to verify all periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA service. In addition, the Board finds that a remand is required to attempt to verify the Veteran's claimed chemical exposure. She asserts that she was exposed to various chemicals such as asbestos, lead, benzene, pesticides, paint, mercury, trichloroethylene, and polychlorinated biphenyl, and strontium-90. She contends that she such exposures occurred at multiple military bases, including, the U.S. Air Force Water Survival School, Clark Air Base, Hill Air Force Base, Utapao Royal Thai Air Force Base, as well as the Pentagon. As such, the Board finds that additional development is required to confirm any possible chemical exposure. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the Veteran's claim. If any requested records are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect this fact and the Veteran notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e). 2. Verify through official sources, including any financial records through DFAS, the Veteran's periods of active duty, ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA in the U.S. Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard. All records and/or responses received should be associated with the claims file. Upon the receipt of such records, prepare a memorandum identifying the dates and nature (active duty, ACDUTRA, INACDUTRA) of the Veteran's military service. 3. Contact any appropriate source to obtain any outstanding service treatment and personnel records from the Veteran's U.S. Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard service. 4. Attempt to verify the Veteran's claimed in-service exposure to asbestos, lead, benzene, pesticides, paint, mercury, trichloroethylene, and polychlorinated biphenyl, and strontium-90. If, after undertaking all reasonable efforts to verify the Veteran's claimed in-service exposure, there is still insufficient information to verify exposure to such chemicals, issue a formal finding outlining the steps taken to assist the Veteran and notify the Veteran of VA's inability to verify the in-service exposure. 5. If the Veteran's exposure to chemicals during service is verified, then the AOJ should obtain an addendum medical opinion from the examiner who provided the January 2021 VA medical opinion. If this examiner is no longer available, then the claims file must be returned to a physician of similar expertise. An examination of the Veteran should only be performed if deemed necessary by the person providing the opinion. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner must state an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater degree of probability) that the Veteran's AML began in or is otherwise related to the Veteran's service, to include any period(s) of active duty, ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. In so opining, the examiner must consider and discuss the favorable medical opinion provided by B.S., M.D. in March 2013. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions offered. If an opinion cannot be offered without resort to mere speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is the case and identify what additional evidence, if any, would allow for a more definitive opinion. 6. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the requisite opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. McKinley, 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.