Citation Nr: 0812786 Decision Date: 04/17/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 07-07 586 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Lincoln, Nebraska THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for lipomas, to include as due to participation in Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD). 2. Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by a loss of reproductive capabilities, to include as due to participation in Project SHAD. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, to include as due to participation in Project SHAD. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. Olson, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from February 1962 to February 1964. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board or BVA) on appeal from an October 2006 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Lincoln, Nebraska. In December 2007, the veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record. At that hearing, the veteran submitted additional evidence directly to the Board accompanied by a signed written waiver of the RO's initial consideration of this additional evidence. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Lipomas are not related to active service including his participation in Project SHAD. 2. A disability manifested by a loss of the veteran's reproductive capabilities is not related to active service including his participation in Project SHAD. 3. A skin disability is not related to active service including his participation in Project SHAD. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Lipomas were not incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2007). 2. A disability manifested by a loss of reproductive capabilities was not incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2007). 3. A skin disability was not incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Board has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence in the veteran's claims folder. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, all of the evidence submitted by the veteran or on his behalf. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the Board must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claims. The veteran must not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the veteran). I. Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 Prior to initial adjudication of the veteran's claim, VA met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty to assist provisions. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326 (2007). A letter dated in June 2006 fully satisfied the duty to notify provisions. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002). The veteran was aware that it was ultimately his responsibility to give VA any evidence pertaining to the claims. The June 2006 letter told him to provide any relevant evidence in his possession. See Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112, 120-21 (2004) (Pelegrini II). That letter also advised him of how VA determines disability ratings and effective dates. See Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). The veteran's service medical records, VA medical treatment records, and identified private medical records have been obtained, to the extent available. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. There is no indication in the record that any additional evidence, relevant to the issues decided herein, is available and not part of the claims file. The veteran was also accorded a VA examination in September 2006. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). As there is no indication that any failure on the part of VA to provide additional notice or assistance reasonably affects the outcome of this case, the Board finds that any such failure is harmless. See Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 103 (2005), rev'd on other grounds, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006). II. Service Connection Service connection means that the facts establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The first question that must be addressed, therefore, is whether incurrence of lipomas, reproductive problems, or a chronic skin disease is factually shown during service. The Board concludes it was not. The veteran's service medical records indicate that he was seen on July 21, 1962 with a boil on his right arm. The boil was lanced and his arm stuffed with packing. The service medical records are absent complaints, findings or diagnoses of lipomas, any other skin problems, or reproductive problems during service. On the clinical examination for separation from service, all of the veteran's systems were evaluated as normal with the exception of scars and tattoos. Thus, there is no medical evidence that shows that the veteran suffered from lipomas, chronic skin disorders, or reproductive problems during service. Alternatively, when a chronic disease is not present during service, service connection may be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) by evidence of continuity of symptomatology. Such evidence is lacking here. The veteran testified at the videoconference hearing that he had lipomas since the mid-to-late 1960s and found out around 1967 that he could not father children. However, examination reports dated in April 1973, April 1976, May 1980, July 1981, May 1982, November 1983, November 1984, November 1985 evaluated all the veteran's systems as normal with the exception of scars, tattoos, and circumcision. In addition, until July 1981, on the Reports of Medical History completed in conjunction with physical examinations, the veteran denied ever having skin diseases, tumors, growth, and cysts. On the July 1981 Report of Medical History, the veteran indicated that that he had tumor, growth, cyst or cancer and on the November 1984 Report of Medical History, the veteran noted that he had had a growth. Thus, with respect to the issues of service connection for lipomas and skin disability, in light of the normal physical examinations conducted from 1973 to 1985, and the lack of any relevant history reported between the veteran's date of discharge in 1964 and 1981, service connection is not warranted under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). When a disease is first diagnosed after service, service connection can still be granted for that condition if the evidence shows it was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). To prevail on the issue of service connection there must be medical evidence of a current disability; medical evidence, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and medical evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); see also Pond v. West, 12 Vet App. 341, 346 (1999). In this case, the appellant clearly has current disabilities. At the September 2006 VA examination, the veteran was diagnosed with infertility, multiple lipomas affecting upper extremities, lower extremities and abdomen and tinea pedis. The remaining question, therefore, is whether there is medical evidence of a relationship between the current disability and military service. However, no medical professional has ever related these conditions to the veteran's military service. The Board notes that the veteran contends that his lipomas, skin disorders, and infertility are related to his participation in Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD). The veteran's participation in Project 112/SHAD, specifically, Autumn Gold and Eager Belle II, while aboard the U.S.S. Navarro, was confirmed by the RO. A December 2001 Under Secretary for Health's Information Letter, indicates that the testing involved biological and chemical warfare agents, simulants, tracers and decontamination chemicals. The letter indicates that prior research suggests that these agents were unlikely to cause long-term health effects without signs of acute toxicity. Most veterans were exposed to only one or a few of these agents, but some veterans may have been involved in multiple tests and repeated exposures. A December 2003 Fact Sheet issued by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) indicates that the purpose of Autumn Gold and Eager Belle was to test U.S. warships' and ashore installations' vulnerabilities to attacks with chemical or biological warfare agents and to develop procedures to respond to such attacks while maintaining a war-fighting capability. The testing involved the dissemination of a biological tracer aerosol, Bacillus globigii, along a release line. In September 2006, the veteran was afforded a VA examination. The veteran's claims file and medical records were reviewed. The examiner opined, "Lipoma, dermatophytosis, loss of reproductive capability is less likely as not (less than 50/50 probability) caused by or a result of Project SHAD. Bacillus subtilis is a noted test agent to which this veteran would have been exposed, as he participated in Project SHAD. As noted from the "Facts Sheet from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) Demployment Health Support Directorate Deseret Test Center Phase II and Autum[n] Gold": "Bacillus globigii (BC): Now considered to be Bacillus subtilis var.niger a close relative of Bacillus subtilis, and this bacterial species was used as a simulate and considered harmless to healthy individuals. Bacillus subtilis and similar in a Bacillus species are common in the environment, and are uncommon causes of disease. They have been associated with acute infections of the ear, meninges, urinary tract, lung, heart valve, bloodstream and other body sites, but always or nearly always in individuals whose health has already been compromised. Long-term or late development health effects would be very unlikely (except perhaps as a[n] acute infection)." The Board notes that testing for Autumn Gold and Eager Belle occurred in February, March, May, and June of 1963. A review of the veteran's service medical records for this period fails to reveal any evidence that his health was compromised at the time of testing. The veteran's service medical records indicate that he underwent an elective circumcision in May 1963 and was discharged four days later in good condition. The examiner stated, "Based on this most recent update regarding this biological agent, there is little evidence to suggest that this test agent would cause any long-term or late developing health affects. Veterans claims of lipoma, dermatophytosis, and infertility would less likely be due to exposure to this agent during Project SHAD. Furthermore, not being a dermatophyte, this agent would not be an etiology to the veteran's dermatophytosis. Review of causes of infertility fails to demonstrate a correlation between exposure to this Bacillus species and male infertility. The Project SHAD tests which this veteran was involved did not utilize agents such as zinc cadmium sulfide or other chemical agents with known possible effects on fertility. Regarding lipoma, specifically, this condition is that of benign fatty tumors of unknown cause which is largely considered to be due to genetics and heredity and, therefore, less likely due to exposure to any biologic agent." The Board has reviewed the veteran's own statements that his lipomas, skin problems, and reproductive problems were caused by his participation in Project SHAD during service. However, as a lay person, the veteran is not competent to provide evidence regarding diagnosis or etiology. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992). Only a medical professional can provide evidence of a diagnosis or etiology of a disease or disorder. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims for service connection, and the benefit of the doubt rule enunciated in 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) is not for application. ORDER Entitlement to service connection for lipomas, to include as due to participation in Project SHAD, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by a loss of reproductive capabilities, to include as due to participation in Project SHAD, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, to include as due to participation in Project SHAD, is denied. ____________________________________________ MILO H. HAWLEY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs