Entitlement to service connection for a balance disorder is remanded.

Citation Nr: A26069990 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 250207-514189 DATE: July 30, 2026 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a balance disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1960 to November 1964. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in January 2025 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the February 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement (NOD)), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. As the Board is remanding the claim, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). The appeal was previously denied by the Board in a May 2025 decision that was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In March 2026, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) dated the same month, the Court vacated the Board's decision and remanded the issue for readjudication consistent with the terms of the JMR. Entitlement to service connection for a balance disorder. The Veteran's claim for service connection must be remanded to cure a pre-decisional duty to assist error. The Board herein makes no finding regarding the Veteran's credibility. Smith v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 332, 334 (2020). Pursuant to the JMR and given the Board's inability to substitute its own medical opinion, remand is required for a medical professional to determine whether the Veteran has a balance disorder that is separate and distinct from his already service connected peripheral neuropathy and radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities. In this respect, the Veteran's medical records reveal treatment for balance issues, and the Board may not independently determine the cause of such. Similarly, to the extent that a diagnosis does exist, the Board notes that the RO has also erred in its development of the Veteran's Toxic Exposure Risk Activities (TERAs). In this respect, the Veteran has been service connected for multiple disabilities based on his acknowledged exposure to herbicide agents during his military service. Nevertheless, the RO's September 2024 TERA memorandum states that the Veteran did not participate in any exposure activities. Thus, in the event that the Veteran is diagnosed with a balance disorder, additional development of his TERAs is necessary prior to adjudication of the service connection issue. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Perform appropriate TERA development based on the Veteran's military service. 2. After completing directive one, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination to address the issue of entitlement to service connection for a balance disorder. The examiner should review the claims folder and indicate such on the examination report. Any testing deemed necessary should be conducted, and the results thereof should be noted in the examination report. After review of the claims folder, as well as an interview with, and examination of, the Veteran, the examiner is asked to address the following: a. Identify each balance disorder that is separate and distinct from the Veteran's service connected bilateral lower extremity neuropathy and radiculopathy that is found to have been present at any time during the appeal period (since approximately May 2024). The examiner should specifically include any balance disorder that causes functional loss. b. For each diagnosed balance disorder including any symptoms causing functional loss (if any), the examiner should provide an opinion regarding whether it is approximately at least as likely as not that the disorder etiologically related to the Veteran's service, including his acknowledged exposure to herbicide agents therein. c. For each diagnosed balance disorder including any symptoms causing functional loss (if any), the examiner should opine whether it is approximately at least as likely as not that such was caused by the Veteran's service connected peripheral neuropathy. d. For each diagnosed balance disorder including any symptoms causing functional loss (if any), the examiner should opine whether it is approximately at least as likely as not that such was aggravated by the Veteran's service connected peripheral neuropathy. e. For each diagnosed balance disorder including any symptoms causing functional loss (if any), the examiner should opine whether it is approximately at least as likely as not that such was caused by the Veteran's service connected radiculopathy. f. For each diagnosed balance disorder including any symptoms causing functional loss (if any), the examiner should opine whether it is approximately at least as likely as not that such was aggravated by the Veteran's service connected radiculopathy. g. For each diagnosed balance disorder including any symptoms causing functional loss (if any), the examiner should opine whether it is approximately at least as likely as not that such is related to his TERAs when considering the total potential exposure through all applicable deployments and the synergistic, combined effect of all toxic exposure risk activities of the Veteran. (Continued on the next page) ? All opinions must be supported by conclusions and a medically supported rationale. The examiner is asked not to provide any hyperlinks as part of the rendered opinions. Nathaniel Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Sosna, 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.