Entitlement to service connection for a lung condition claimed as due to environmental hazards is remanded.

Citation Nr: 26001457 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 20-28 944A DATE: January 30, 2026 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lung condition claimed as due to environmental hazards is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Marine Corps from June 2005 to May 2011. His decorations include a Combat Action Ribbon (Afghanistan) and an Iraq Campaign Medal. In March 2024, the Board denied service connection for a lung condition. The Veteran appealed the issue to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In January 2025, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), remanding the issue to the Board. In August 2025, the Board remanded the issue for further development. The Board notes that in the August 2025 remand, issues of service connection for bilateral shoulder conditions and bilateral wrist conditions were also remanded. However, in two October 2025 rating decisions, service connection for right shoulder, right wrist, and left wrist disabilities was granted; and in November 2025, service connection for a left shoulder disability was granted. Because the Veteran was awarded service connection, these issues are no longer on appeal before the Board. See generally Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a lung condition is remanded. Unfortunately, another remand is required. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. In the March 2024 Board decision, the claim for service connection was denied on the basis that the Veteran did not have a relevant diagnosis at any time during the pendency of the claim. The Board relied, in part, on a March 2021 VA examination report. The JMPR indicated that the Board erred in not reconciling the testing results in the respiratory conditions examination. Specifically, the examiner indicated that pulmonary function testing (PFT) had been performed, but also noted that the PFT results did not reflect the Veteran's current pulmonary function. Subsequently, in the August 2025 remand, the Board remanded the issue again to obtain a medical opinion on the nature and etiology of the claimed lung condition. In September 2025, the Veteran had another VA respiratory conditions examination. The examiner concluded that the Veeran did not have any relevant diagnosis, but also noted that based on the Veteran's description, he "may" have asthma. PFT was performed, which did not reflect the Veteran's current pulmonary function; however, asthma did not always show on PFT unless he was having an episode. The Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the August 2025 Board remand directives, and corrective action is necessary. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that where the remand of the Board or the Court is not complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance). The examiner did not discuss the March 2021 or September 2025 findings that PFT results did not reflect the Veteran's current pulmonary function, as directed by the JMPR and the August 2025 Board remand. Furthermore, the finding that the Veteran "may" have asthma is speculative, and cannot be used to support a claim. See Hood v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 295, 298 (2009); see also Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609, 611 (1992) (medical opinions, which are speculative, general, or inconclusive in nature, cannot support a claim). The Board cannot substitute its medical judgment for that of a qualified medical professional. See Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991). As such, remand for a medical opinion is necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a medical opinion on the nature and likely etiology of the claimed lung condition. The examiner should first clarify whether the Veteran has any diagnosed lung condition, to include discussion of: a. the March 2021 VA examination findings in which PFT results were noted to be normal, but the examiner indicated that the results did not reflect the Veteran's current pulmonary function; b. The September 2025 VA examination findings that PFT was performed, which did not reflect the Veteran's current pulmonary function; and c. The September 2025 VA examiner's note that the Veteran "may" have asthma, which did not show on PFT. For any diagnosis, the examiner should then provide a medical opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the condition is related to incident, injury, or event in active service, to include discussion of the Veteran's statements that he was struck by an IED while on patrol in Afghanistan in 2010, and that he was exposed to numerous explosions and multiple engagements in gun battles. The examiner is also advised that the Veteran had military service that constitutes presumptive toxic exposure under 38 U.S.C. § 1119. A thorough rationale should be provided for all opinions expressed. If any requested medical opinion cannot be given, the examiner should state the reason(s) why. If the VA examiner determines that further examination is necessary in order to render the requested medical opinion(s), the AOJ should schedule the Veteran for such an examination. H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Nelson 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.