Citation Nr: 21042266 Decision Date: 07/12/21 Archive Date: 07/12/21 DOCKET NO. 13-23 173 DATE: July 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for conjunctival melanosis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for melanosis oculi is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1972 to December 1992. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2011 rating decision issued by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In March 2020, the Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for conjunctival melanosis and melanosis oculi. In January 2021, the Veteran appealed the Board decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). The next month, in February 2021, the CAVC granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMR) vacating the Board's March 2020 decision. The parties before CAVC found the VA failed to explain whether a heightened duty to assist applied to the Veteran's claims. The parties also found the Board did not sufficiently explain why it decided the claim based on two VA disability examinations it had previously found inadequate. The JMR directed the Board to explain why it relied on the June 2017 and June 2018 VA examinations or obtain a new medical opinion. The Board finds a new medical opinion is warranted. The record shows medical findings of conjunctival melanosis/melanosis oculi during the appeal period and an October 2019 medical opinion that found those diagnoses were not present at that time. See July 2017 VA Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) at 4; October 2019 VA Medical Opinion at 2, 3. Because the October 2019 opinion did not address the prior diagnoses of melanosis oculi, it did not provide sufficient information to evaluate the potentially conflicting information. Neither does any other medical opinion of record. As a result, the Veteran's claim must be remanded for another VA medical opinion before the Board is able to decide the claim. Remand is also warranted in order to attempt to obtain the Veteran's complete service treatment records and to provide proper notice to the Veteran. VA has a heightened duty to assist in light of the evidence that the records are partially missing. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Make an additional, reasonable effort to obtain the Veteran's complete service records. If, after making as many requests as are necessary to obtain this information it is determined that the information sought does not exist, or is unconfirmed, or that further efforts to obtain this information would be futile, issue a Formal Finding on the Unavailability of Records Memorandum, consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e)(1), identifying: (i) the specific information VA was unable to obtain; (ii) an explanation of the efforts VA made to obtain the information; (iii) a description of any further action VA will undertake regarding the claim, including, but not limited to, notice that VA will decide the claim based on the evidence of record unless the Veteran submits evidence VA was unable to obtain; and (iv) a notice that the appellant is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for conjunctival melanosis and melanosis oculi. The examiner must review the claims file. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: (a.) Clarify the Veteran's specific type of conjunctival melanosis, and whether the condition is benign or malignant. (b.) Clarify the Veteran's diagnosis of melanosis oculi by specifying exactly what ocular structure the pigmentation is seen on. (c.) Then provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran's conjunctival melanosis is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to service, including exposure to sunlight, ultraviolet rays, and dry, dusty conditions while serving in SW Asia? (d.) Regardless of the answer to (c), is the Veteran's melanosis oculi at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to service, including exposure to sunlight, ultraviolet rays, and dry, dusty conditions while serving in SW Asia? (e.) If the Veteran has another non-service connected eye condition, in addition to or instead of conjunctival melanosis or melanosis oculi, is that condition at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to service, including exposure to sunlight, ultraviolet rays, and dry, dusty conditions while serving in SW Asia? If there are multiple conditions, provide separation opinions for each additional eye condition. (f.) Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s). The examiner, in coming to his or her conclusion, is asked to comment on the following: **Discuss whether the in-service notations of conjunctivitis are causally related to the disabilities on appeal. The relevant STRs are dated March 1 and 6, 1980. **Discuss whether the Veteran's left eye injury noted in the February 28, 1980, STR is related to the disabilities on appeal. **Discuss whether the Veteran's right eye injury noted in the December 24, 1984, STR is related to the disabilities on appeal. **Discuss the June 2018 medical opinion that opined conjunctivitis does not lead to conjunctival melanosis or melanosis oculi. **Discuss the July 2017 VA DBQ that found conjunctival melanosis and diagnosed melanosis oculi. **Discuss the October 2019 VA DBQ that found no evidence of conjunctival melanosis and diagnosed cataracts. **In providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran's description of his in-service injury and symptoms as well as his post-service symptoms. 3. Then, readjudicate the claims on appeal. Romina A. Casadei Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Dean, Michael S. 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.