Citation Nr: 18152004 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/20/18 DOCKET NO. 16-51 144 DATE: November 20, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran was not exposed to an herbicide agent, including Agent Orange, during his service. 2. The Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease did not originate in service or within one year of discharge therefrom, and is not otherwise etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW 5. The criteria for service connection for Parkinson’s disease have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1131, 1137, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from May 1963 to May 1967. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeal (Board) on appeal from a February 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with respect to VA’s duty to notify or assist. The Board finds that no deficiencies in the duty to notify or assist are otherwise apparent from the record. In this regard the Board points out that a VA examination is not necessary for the issue decided herein, as the record does not establish that the Veteran suffered any in-service event that led to his Parkinson’s disease, for reasons discussed in greater detail below. Absent competent evidence of an in-service event, or that the Veteran’s current disability is otherwise related to service, there is no obligation to provide the Veteran with a VA examination. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease. The Veteran seeks service connection for Parkinson’s disease on the basis that his disability is linked to exposure to an herbicide agent during active military service. To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). VA has also established a presumption of service connection for certain diseases found to be associated with exposure to an herbicide agent. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116, 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Absent affirmative evidence to the contrary, such diseases will be service connected even if there is no evidence of the disease during service, provided that herbicide exposure is established. Id.; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d). The term “herbicide agent” means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962 and ending on May 7, 1975 (the Vietnam Era). 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). A veteran who, during active military service, served in the Republic of Vietnam (or in certain other enumerated places) during the Vietnam Era is presumed to have been exposed to such herbicide agents. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). The Veteran’s current treatment records reflect a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease, as such the first element of service connection, a current disability, is met. Turning to the second element of service connection, in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, the Board notes that the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease was incurred or aggravated during service. The objective medical evidence of record fully supports that conclusion. Notably, the Veteran’s DD-214 and service personnel records (SPRs) do not reflect that the Veteran was deployed to Vietnam or any other location associated with the use of an herbicide agent. Indeed, his DD-214 reflects no foreign service, and that he had a military occupational specialty of administrative specialist. The Veteran does not contend that he was exposed to herbicide agents as a result of foreign service or service aboard certain aircraft; instead, the Veteran contends that he was exposed to Agent Orange through the handling of paperwork from aircraft that sprayed herbicides. The Veteran’s assertion regarding his contended exposure does not meet the parameters of the presumption regarding herbicide agent exposure, nor does the Board find his contention to be competent. The Veteran has offered no evidence beyond his assertion that any such documents he handled were exposed to herbicide agents, or that such herbicide agents could linger on these documents and cause later exposure to any person who handled them. Based on the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service, the evidence does not support herbicide agent exposure. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Accordingly, as herbicide agent exposure is not established, service connection may not be established for Parkinson’s disease on the basis that it is linked to such exposure, presumptively or otherwise. Finally, on a direct basis, there is no evidence that the Veteran suffered from Parkinson’s disease or its symptoms during his active service or for many years thereafter, and there is also no competent evidence otherwise relating his disability directly to his active service. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s statements regarding his Parkinson’s disease. The Veteran, however, has not provided details alleging any in-service event or diagnosis that could be related to his claimed Parkinson’s disease. The absence of post-service complaints, findings, diagnosis, or treatment for many years after service is one factor that tends to weigh against a finding of continuous symptoms after service separation. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Thus, any assertions that he may make as to onset during service with subsequent continuity of are not supported by the objective evidence of record. Although the Veteran has established a current disability, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against a finding of an in-service event, injury or disease, or that the Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease is causally related to his service. Since the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable. For these reasons, service connection for Parkinson’s disease is denied. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. R. Higgins, Associate Counsel