BVA9500321 DOCKET NO. 93-05 691 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a pleural disease secondary to exposure to asbestos. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a nasal disability secondary to exposure to asbestos. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a throat condition secondary to exposure to asbestos. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Patrick J. Costello, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from December 1952 to November 1954. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter the Board) on appeal from a November 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), in Montgomery, Alabama, which denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a pleural disease, a nasal condition, and a throat disability, all due to exposure to asbestos. REMAND The veteran has been diagnosed as suffering from pleural disease secondary to exposure to asbestos. The veteran claims that while in service he was exposed to asbestos fibers when he lived and worked in Quonset huts in Alaska. However, prior to his active duty military service, the veteran was an electrician's apprentice. After service, he returned to the workplace as an electrician, and remained in that type of position for thirty- five plus years. The RO has denied service connection for his various disabilities secondary to exposure to asbestos. It has determined that since the veteran worked around asbestos lined pipes after his military service, his present condition is related to his after-service employment. However, the RO has not attempted to contact any of the veteran's three prior employers to discover whether, in fact, the veteran was exposed to asbestos. Moreover, the RO has not contacted the service department to discover whether the veteran may have been exposed to asbestos while he was stationed in Alaska. The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals has held that the duty to assist the veteran in obtaining and developing facts and evidence to support his claim includes obtaining previous records identified by the veteran. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990); Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). We find that the RO was deficient in its duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim when it did not seek confirmation of his asbestos exposure while in service or after service. Therefore, prior to our adjudication of the issues before us, we believe that further development of this claim is necessary in order to ensure that the veteran receives due process. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the service department and request information concerning possible asbestos exposure of the veteran while he was stationed in Alaska. The RO should specifically ask whether the service department can determine, based on its personnel, medical, and engineering records, if the veteran was billeted and worked in Quonset huts while in Alaska. The service department should also be asked to provide information as to whether asbestos was included in the building design of the Quonset huts in question. All obtained information should be included in the record. 2. The veteran has indicated that he receives benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA) because of his pleural disease. The RO should obtain copies and consider any records of a benefits award that the appellant has received from the SSA, including any medical or psychiatric determinations made by that Administration. 3. The veteran has stated that he worked for the Alabama Power Company, between the years of 1954 through 1960, the Birmingham Housing Authority, between the years of 1960 through 1976, the State of Alabama, between the years of 1976 through 1983, and again, the Alabama Power Company, between the years of 1983 through 1990. The RO should contact each of the veteran's employers and specifically request any information they might have concerning the veteran's possible exposure to asbestos while he worked for them. All information received should be included in the claims file. Following completion of the requested development, the veteran's claim should be readjudicated. If the decision remains unfavorable, he and his representative should be given a supplemental statement of the case and allowed sufficient time for a response. Thereafter, the claim should be returned to the Board for further consideration. No action is required of the veteran until he is contacted by the regional office. The purpose of this REMAND is to ensure due process. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) JACK W. BLASINGAME Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1993).