Citation Nr: 18149108 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 16 36-890 DATE: November 8, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for renal cell carcinoma, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for hairy cell leukemia, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a thyroid condition, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for an adrenal gland nodule, to include as secondary to herbicide exposure is denied. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has renal cell carcinoma due to a disease or injury in service. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has hairy cell leukemia due to a disease or injury in service. 3. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a thyroid condition due to a disease or injury in service 4. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has an adrenal gland nodule due to a disease or injury in service. 5. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has diabetes mellitus due to a disease or injury in service CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for renal cell carcinoma have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1137, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). 2. The criteria for service connection for hairy cell leukemia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1137, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). 3. The criteria for service connection for a thyroid condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1137, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). 4. The criteria for service connection for an adrenal gland nodule, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1137, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). 5. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1137, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017).   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from February 1972 to December 1979. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from November 2014, and June 2015, rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for renal cell carcinoma is denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hairy cell leukemia is denied. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a thyroid condition is denied. 4. Entitlement to service connection for an adrenal gland nodule is denied. 5. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied. The Veteran claims his renal cell carcinoma, hairy cell leukemia, a thyroid condition, adrenal gland nodules, and diabetes mellitus are a result of his time in service. He asserts that while stationed in Camp Drum (now known as Fort Drum), and in Panama, he was exposed to herbicides. He contends exposure to herbicides led to the development of the claimed conditions. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service, or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s renal cell carcinoma, hairy cell leukemia, a thyroid condition, adrenal gland nodules, and diabetes mellitus, is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). The service treatment records are negative for any complaints or reports of renal cell carcinoma, hairy cell leukemia, a thyroid condition, adrenal gland nodules, or diabetes mellitus. Following a request by the RO, the JSRRC submitted a response in February 2014, indicating that a review with the National Archives and Records Administration, revealed U.S. Army historical records do not document the spraying, testing, transporting, storage or usage of Agent Orange at Fort Drum, New York during May 1975 to July 1975 (when the Veteran was stationed there). Records document that during May through October of 1959, thirteen drums of concentrated butyl esters 2, 4, D and 2,4 5-T (Herbicide Purple) were aerially applied by helicopter over 2,560 acres of Fort Drum in the summer of 1959. The area selected for treatment was an area isolated from combat maneuvers. Following a request, the JSRRC submitted a response in August 2014, indicating that their research with the National Archives and Records Administration, indicated that the U.S. Army historical records do not document the spraying, testing, transporting or usage of Agent Orange in the Panama Canal Zone for the period March to May 1975 (when the Veteran was stationed there). The VA has not recognized the use of tactical herbicides in Panama or anywhere near Fort Drum, NY for the periods of time the Veteran served there. VA and private treatment records, note a history of hairy cell leukemia, diabetes, papillary thyroid cancer with a total thyroidectomy, chronic kidney disease status-post right nephrectomy, and an adrenal gland nodule. There is no question the Veteran has these current disabilities, but he does not meet the criteria for service connection because the most probative evidence of record does not show an in-service event, injury, or disease leading to these disabilities. In 2015, the Veteran asserted that his renal condition, thyroid condition, and adrenal gland nodule, and were related to the conditions of diabetes and hairy cell leukemia. The Veteran submitted a May 2017, DBQ completed by Dr. R.S.. The physician noted that the Veteran suffers from several medical conditions, to include diabetes with chronic kidney disease, hairy cell leukemia, hyperparathyroidism due to renal insufficiency, renal cell carcinoma requiring a total nephrectomy, and thyroid cancer requiring a thyroidectomy. Dr. S. stated people with hairy cell leukemia are twice as likely to develop a second cancer. Dr. S. stated that it is possible the Veteran developed hairy cell leukemia because of exposure to residual herbicide contaminants in Camp Drum’s environment. Additionally, he concluded it is reasonable to surmise his diabetes was the result of exposure to dioxin at Camp Drum. Dr. S. noted the Department of Defense had acknowledged the use of Agent Purple at Camp Drum in 1959, and a contaminant TCDD was utilized in the 1970s. He cited to a toxicologist who reported TCDD can be found within the top six inches of soil for at least 20 hears after herbicide use. Military personnel records indicate the Veteran was in Fort Drum 1974 to 1975, and the Panama Canal Zone from 1975 to 1978. Although the opinion of Dr. S. has been taken into consideration, Dr. S. is not competent to make toxicological conclusions regarding herbicide use at Fort Drum. He further is not shown to be competent to determine the amount, if any, of herbicide exposure the Veteran may have had at Fort Drum or other duty stations. Therefore, his opinion is afforded no probative weight. As a final point, the Board observes that the Veteran submitted numerous articles that support a link between Agent Orange and various conditions. Although there is a link between some of the claimed disabilities and exposure to herbicides, the articles do not provide persuasive support for his claims as exposure to herbicides has not been conceded. Furthermore, each case is decided on the basis of the individual facts in light of the applicable law and regulations. Although the Board has considered the articles, they are not binding and do not control the outcome of this appeal; rather, the facts of this particular case are determinative. Although the Veteran believes his of renal cell carcinoma, hairy cell leukemia, a thyroid condition, adrenal gland nodules, and diabetes mellitus, are proximately due to service, he is not competent to provide a nexus opinion in this case; nor is he competent to opine as to whether he was exposed to herbicides in service. The issues are medically complex, as each requires knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body/interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). He is not competent to relate his renal cell carcinoma, hairy cell leukemia, a thyroid condition, adrenal gland nodules, and diabetes mellitus to service. The opinion of Dr. S. has been considered; however, the most probative evidence does not show that the Veteran was actually exposed to herbicides during service. The JSRRC has confirmed that the Veteran was not exposed to herbicides either at Fort Drum or in Panama. The Board finds this evidence highly probative as to whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicides—more probative than articles stating that herbicides could still be in the top soil 20+ years following the use of herbicides. Although the Board recognizes the Veteran’s sincere belief that his disorders are related to herbicide exposure in service, there is no competent evidence showing that the Veteran was actually exposed to herbicides in service. The private opinion is based on an inaccurate history, and absent an in-service event, injury, or disease, the Veteran’s claim fails. Finally, the service treatment records do not show treatment for of renal cell carcinoma, hairy cell leukemia, a thyroid condition, adrenal gland nodules, or diabetes mellitus, or symptoms related to these disorders, and the first indication of hairy cell leukemia was over 7 years post service, with the other conditions not being shown for over twenty years post service. In other words, the most probative evidence of record does not show that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in service, or that his claimed renal cell carcinoma, hairy cell leukemia, a thyroid condition, adrenal gland nodules, or diabetes mellitus are directly due to service. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Skiouris, Associate Counsel