Citation Nr: 22018377 Decision Date: 03/29/22 Archive Date: 03/29/22 DOCKET NO. 19-00 601A DATE: March 29, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left eye chalazion is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1984 to March 2004. In addition to the issues on appeal, the Board notes that the Veteran indicated in his June 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD) that he also disagreed with the May 2015 rating decision as it related to the rating assigned to his service-connected duodenal ulcer and the denial of service connection for lumbar spine arthritis. In a December 2018 rating decision, the Regional Office (RO) granted service connection for lumbar disc disease (claimed as lumbar spine arthritis). This decision was a complete grant of benefits with respect to the issue of service connection pertaining to his lumbar spine, and this issue is no longer on appeal before the Board. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With regard to the Veteran's duodenal ulcer claim, this issue was included on the December 2018 statement of the case (SOC). However, the Veteran specifically did not appeal this issue on his January 2019 substantive appeal, and he did not indicate at the November 2021 hearing that he wished to appeal this issue. As such, this issue was not properly appealed to the Board. With regard to the claims on appeal, the Board notes that the claims file contains some of the Veteran's service treatment records. However, it appears that perhaps not all of the service treatment records from the Veteran's entire period of service have been associated with the claims file. In addition to the records obtained by the RO, the Veteran has submitted several additional pages, which suggests not all records were obtained. As such, the Board finds the issues on appeal must be remanded in order to obtain all outstanding service treatment records. 1. Entitlement to service connection for left eye chalazion is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for a left eye disability. At the November 2021 hearing, the Veteran testified that he first began seeking treatment for a chalazion in his eye in approximately 1999 and 2000 and that this has been a recurrent condition. He suggested that perhaps this condition was related to the glare of the sand from the desert in service. In a November 2014 statement, the Veteran suggested that his eye problems were the result of his continual exposure to petroleum as part of his military occupational specialty (MOS) as a petroleum-supply specialist in service. Available service treatment record reveal that the Veteran complained of irritation to both eyes in August 1992. The Veteran was noted as having a chalazion on his left upper eyelid or a stye on his left upper eyelid in August 2000. In December 2000, he was noted as having myopia and astigmatism as well. Post-service medical records from the Texas Eye Institute from 2012 through 2017 document a history of a chalazion. An April 2015 VA Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) noted a diagnosis of left Bergmeister's papilla and conjunctival cyst of the right lower eyelid. The examiner concluded that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner noted that the Veteran did not have evidence of a chalazion present. A small cyst of the conjunctiva is different and can be from many etiologies, including rubbing the eye, or can be spontaneous. Chalazions do not cause cysts. While the Veteran showed no evidence of a chalazion at the time of his April 2015 VA examination, the evidence of record does reflect that this has been a recurrent problem for the Veteran over the years. Moreover, the examiner did not discuss the Veteran's assertions regarding in-service exposure to sand and petroleum resulting in eye problems. As such, the Board finds that a new VA opinion should be obtained on this matter, which discusses the in-service and post-service medical evidence documenting recurrent treatment for a chalazion, as well as the Veteran's assertions regarding sand and petroleum. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for hypertension. At the November 2021 hearing, the Veteran testified that he first began experiencing hypertension during service and has been on medication to treat his hypertension since that time. The Veteran's available service treatment records reflect that he was noted as having essential hypertension in a September 1999 service treatment record, and it appears he was given medication at that time. However, several subsequent treatment records for other conditions do not note he was taking blood pressure medication. Post service, the Veteran was noted as having hypertension in a December 2008 medical record from Gulf Coast Family Medicine. In light of the in-service and post-service evidence of hypertension, the Board finds that the Veteran should be scheduled for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his hypertension. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for a left knee condition. At the November 2021 hearing, the Veteran asserted that he injured his left knee in service initially by dropping out of airplanes at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He testified that he tore his meniscus and had knee surgery. Available service treatment records reveal that the Veteran underwent a left knee arthroscopy and partial meniscectomy in January 1999. In a November 2010 medical record from Gulf Coast Family Medicine, the Veteran complained of left knee pain. In light of the in-service and post-service evidence of left knee complaints, the Board finds that the Veteran should be scheduled for a VA examination to determine the etiology of any currently diagnosed left knee disabilities. The private medical records also contain a notation that the Veteran reported a history of a left knee meniscal tear in 2004. If this occurred after service, he should provide information as to where he was treated, so the records can be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Exhaust all available avenues for obtaining all outstanding service treatment records. Associate all responses with the claims file, to include negative responses. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a release authorizing VA to request his records for treatment for a left knee meniscal tear in 2004. If records are requested but not obtained, advise the Veteran of such. 3. Do NOT complete the following until all service treatment records have been obtained, to the extent possible. 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his claimed hypertension. The claims file should be provided to the appropriate examiner for review, and the examiner should note that it has been reviewed. After reviewing the file, examining the Veteran, and noting his reported history of symptoms, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has hypertension that was incurred in, or caused or aggravated by, his military service. See Government Medical Records, receipt date 6/29/15 at page 30 showing diagnosis of essential hypertension in September 1999; Non-Government Medical Records, receipt date 6/12/14 at page 7 showing diagnosis of hypertension in December 2008. The examiner is asked to explain the reasons behind any opinions expressed and conclusions reached. 5. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his claimed left knee condition. All appropriate tests and studies should be performed, and all clinical findings reported in detail. The claims file should be provided to the appropriate examiner for review, and the examiner should note that it has been reviewed. After reviewing the file, examining the Veteran, and noting his reported history of symptoms, the examiner should diagnose the Veteran with all current left knee disabilities. Then, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any diagnosed left knee disability was incurred in, or caused or aggravated by, the Veteran's military service. In rendering the requested opinion, the examiner should specifically discuss the Veteran's 1999 left knee surgery. See Government Medical Records, receipt date 6/29/15 at pages 14-22 showing diagnosis of meniscus tear December 1998 and debridement in January 1999. The examiner is asked to explain the reasons behind any opinions expressed and conclusions reached. 6. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his claimed left eye chalazion. All appropriate tests and studies should be performed, and all clinical findings reported in detail. The claims file should be provided to the appropriate examiner for review, and the examiner should note that it has been reviewed. After reviewing the file, examining the Veteran, and noting his reported history of symptoms, the examiner should diagnose the Veteran with all current left eye disabilities, to include left eye chalazion. Then, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any diagnosed left eye disabilities, to include left eye chalazion, were incurred in, or caused or aggravated by, the Veteran's military service. See Government Medical Records, receipt date 6/29/15 at pages 23-29 showing treatment for left eye; Non-Government Medical Records, receipt date 12/14/21 showing treatment for left eye between 2012 and 2017. In rendering the requested opinion, the examiner should specifically discuss the post-service medical evidence and the Veteran's hearing testimony suggesting that his left eye chalazion could be a recurrent condition. The examiner should also discuss the Veteran's assertions that he developed eye problems related to exposure to sand or glare from the desert or from petroleum while serving as a petroleum-supply specialist in service. The examiner is asked to explain the reasons behind any opinions expressed and conclusions reached. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Durham, 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.