Citation Nr: 1324296 Decision Date: 07/31/13 Archive Date: 08/07/13 DOCKET NO. 10-02 276 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Buffalo, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to ionizing radiation exposure. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Rebecca Feinberg, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active duty service from August 1981 to April 2000. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Buffalo, New York. While the Veteran initially requested a formal hearing at the RO before a Decision Review Officer, he later submitted a statement dated in May 2010 indicating that he accepted an informal conference in lieu of a formal RO hearing. The May 2010 report from the informal conference is associated with the claims file. Therefore, the Board finds that there is no outstanding hearing request in this case A review of the Veteran's Virtual VA claims folder reveals that it contains only evidence that is duplicative of that which is already in the paper claims file or evidence that is irrelevant to the issues on appeal. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran has claimed that he has prostate cancer that is a result of exposure to ionizing radiation when he was in Holland in April 1986 during his military service. He has asserted that the exposure is due to a nuclear meltdown in Russia. The Veteran has also submitted a personnel record showing that he participated in Exercise Crested Eagle 86 in Holland from April 12, 1986, to April 26, 1986. Although the Veteran does not state it with specificity, it appears that he is referring to the April 1986 incident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. He has not provided any additional information regarding his alleged radiation exposure, but the Board notes that the Chernobyl nuclear accident occurred on April 26, 1986, and that contamination was detected in other countries in Europe. The Veteran's representative also submitted a brief in June 2013 referencing the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown. Prostate cancer is considered a radiogenic disease under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.311. Thus, a dose estimate is necessary to determine the extent of radiation exposure, if any, the Veteran may have had during his military service. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. The RO/AMC should take all appropriate steps to obtain any information regarding the Veteran's possible exposure to ionizing radiation while in Holland from April 12, 1986, to April 26, 1986, to include contacting the Veteran to request additional information and contacting the correct outlets for obtaining any additional service documents. 2. After completing the requested development above, the RO/AMC should forward all evidence and information pertinent to the claim for service connection for prostate cancer to the Under Secretary for Health for preparation of a dose estimate, to the extent feasible, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a). It should be noted that the Veteran appears to be alleging exposure to radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. If necessary, the claims file should then be submitted to the Under Secretary for Benefits to obtain an advisory medical opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any exposure to ionizing radiation during the Veteran's service caused or contributed to his development of prostate cancer. 3. After completing all requested action, and any additional notification and/or development warranted by the record, the RO/AMC should readjudicate the remanded claim with consideration of all pertinent evidence and legal authority and addressing all relevant theories of entitlement. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the RO/AMC should provide the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The Veteran and his representative should then be afforded the appropriate time period to respond. Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ JESSICA J. WILLS Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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) (2012).