Citation Nr: A25035192 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 241121-491449 DATE: April 16, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in active-duty service with the Army from December 1967 to April 1968, and from May 1968 to January 1970 to include Reserve service. The rating decision on appeal was issued in November 2024; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. The Veteran submitted a November 2024 10182 form selecting the Direct Review option; the Veteran in January 2025 waived their right to other review options. The Board also notes that a March 2020 rating decision denied service connection for diabetes mellitus that was not appealed and became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. The November 2024 rating decision found new and relevant evidence was received to reconsider the Veteran's appeal; as such, the Board also need not consider whether to reopen/reconsider the claim. During the pendency of the appeal, favorable findings were made to include finding the Veteran with a current diagnosis for diabetes mellitus; sufficient service to meet minimum requirements for presumptive service connection; participation in toxic exposure risk activities; and that diabetes mellitus was a disease that may be presumptively linked to military service. As such, the Board is bound by the favorable findings. AMA, Pub. L. No. 115-55, § 5104A, 131 Stat. 1105, 1106-07. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). The Board finds that remand is warranted for development. In a December 2022 claim, the Veteran claimed service-connection for diabetes mellitus as due to exposure burn pits during military training in Hawaii. In a September 2024 VA medical opinion, the examiner stated the Veteran claimed diabetes mellitus due to claimed exposure to oil, diesel, and solvents. The examiner gave a negative etiology opinion in relation to toxic exposure risk activities "after considering the total potential exposure...and the synergistic, combined effect of all toxic exposure risk activities..." The examiner also found no current medical literature to support a relationship between exposure to oil, diesel, and solvents in relation to diabetes. However, the examiner does not address whether the Veteran's claimed diabetes mellitus would be related to active-duty service under direct service connection to include exposure to burn pits as claimed by the Veteran. As such, the Board finds remand is warranted to obtain and adequate opinion to address the raised theory of entitlement. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the claims file to the VA examiner who provided the September 2024 medical opinion on the nature and etiology of the Veteran's diabetes mellitus, if available, for clarification and addendum opinion. If that examiner is not available, the claims file should be provided to another physician to obtain the requested opinion. After review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to respond to the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus had its onset during, was caused by, or is otherwise related to active service to include exposure to toxic exposure risk activities and burn pit exposure? (b.) The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report in-service events and treatment, and the Veteran's symptoms and history; such reports and assertions must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so. (c.) A complete rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. In doing so, the examiner should reconcile any contrary medical evidence of record. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Yang, Jonathan 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.