Citation Nr: 18146577 Decision Date: 10/31/18 Archive Date: 10/31/18 DOCKET NO. 15-22 818 DATE: October 31, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is granted. FINDING OF FACT There is competent and credible evidence showing the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while serving as a Navy pilot in the Republic of Vietnam, and he carries a current diagnosis of prostate cancer. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer on a presumptive basis have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from March 1956 to January 1965. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Oakland, California. The Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in October 2018. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). 1. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer Service connection may be established for disability resulting from diseases or injuries which are clearly present in service or for a disease diagnosed after discharge from service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). That an injury or disease occurred in service is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury or disease. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Federal Circuit has held that continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) applies only to chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (2013). Additionally, for veterans who have served 90 days or more of active service during a war period or after December 31, 1946, certain chronic disabilities are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Further, VA regulations provide that for a Veteran who has been exposed to an herbicide agent during military service, service connection for prostate cancer will be presumed. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2017). Herbicide agents are defined by VA regulation as a chemical used in an herbicide used by the United States, specifically noted as: 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD; cacodylic acid; and, picloram. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(i) (2017). Exposure is presumptive for those Veterans found to have served on the ground in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam War. (Continued on the next page)   On appeal, the Veteran has averred that he was exposed to herbicide agents as a result of his military service; specifically, that he was exposed while serving as a Navy pilot during which period he landed on several occasions within the Republic of Vietnam. A review of the Veteran’s service personnel records supports his lay statements and hearing testimony characterizing his service. As such, the Board finds the Veteran’s statements credible and consistent with his service, and exposure to herbicide agents is presumed. Moreover, a review of the record shows the Veteran has a current diagnosis of prostate cancer. As explained above, prostate cancer is presumptively service connected for those Veterans found to have been exposed to herbicide agents in service. As such, service connection for prostate cancer is granted on a presumptive basis. See 38 C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.307, 3.309. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Z. Sahraie, Associate Counsel