BVA9501639 DOCKET NO. 93-07 081 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a lung disability 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 April 1946 to April 1947, and from February 1948 to February 1969. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter the Board) on appeal from a September 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), in St. Petersburg, Florida, which denied the veteran's claim for service connection for idiopathic sensory polyneuropathy and a lung condition secondary to exposure to asbestos. At the veteran's personal hearing at the RO, conducted in April 1992, the veteran withdrew the claim for service connection for idiopathic sensory polyneuropathy. REMAND This twenty-two year veteran of the US Army maintains that the RO erred when it denied service connection for a lung condition secondary to exposure to asbestos. He claims that while he was stationed at Fort McPherson, Georgia, he was exposed to asbestos in the building that he worked. He further avers that nearly everyday he worked over a period of three years, dust and airborne particles coated his workspace. Despite his claims of this exposure, the veteran's service chest x-ray reports during this time period did not show any abnormalities. The RO has denied service connection for his various disabilities secondary to exposure to asbestos. It has determined that since there is no documentation of the veteran working around asbestos during service, his present condition is either related to his before or 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. The RO has also not contacted the veteran's pre- military service employer in Canada. 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 Georgia. 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. 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 Georgia. The RO should specifically ask whether the service department can determine, based on its personnel, medical, and engineering records, if, while in Georgia, the veteran was billeted and worked in buildings that contained asbestos. All obtained information should be made a part of the record. 2. The veteran has stated that he worked for a Canadian ship company, between the years of 1942 through 1945, Rich's Department Store, in Atlanta Georgia, between the years of 1969 through 1977, and the Boulder Community Hospital, Boulder, Colorado, between the years of 1980 to 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 made a part of the record. 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 compliance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). 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) (1994).