Citation Nr: 18152918
Decision Date: 11/26/18	Archive Date: 11/26/18

DOCKET NO. 13-14 651
DATE:	November 26, 2018
ORDER
Service connection for asbestosis is granted.
Service connection for bladder cancer is granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his asbestosis is at least as likely as not related to asbestos exposure in service.
2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his bladder cancer also is at least as likely as not related to asbestos exposure in service.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The criteria for service connection for asbestosis are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a).
2. The criteria for service connection for bladder cancer also are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Veteran had active service from May 1974 to November 1976. The appellant has been accepted as the substitute claimant for the purpose of processing this appeal to completion.
The contention in this instance is that the Veteran was exposed to asbestos while in service, and that it caused his asbestosis and terminal bladder cancer.
The required causal connection between the Veteran’s asbestosis and bladder cancer, and exposure to asbestos in service, has been established, so service connection for these diseases is warranted.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).
A February 2002 private treatment record shows the Veteran was diagnosed with asbestosis, and a May 2011 private treatment record documents an additional diagnosis of bladder cancer. In February 2015, the Veteran’s private treating physician opined that the Veteran’s bladder cancer was due to his exposure to asbestos while in service. This commenting physician cited a medical study demonstrating a link between asbestos exposure and the later development of bladder cancer. This commenting physician related the Veteran’s bladder cancer to probable asbestos exposure while stationed at Lackland Air Force Base. 
In support of his appeal, the Veteran submitted articles describing the presence of asbestos in building materials used to build air force bases around the country during his service period. He also submitted an article documenting the presence of asbestos in a chapel that he regularly attended while in service. Along with this evidence, the Veteran provided his personal recollection of serving as a guard in the air force facilities, radar stations, and airplanes that have been shown to have contained asbestos.
After reviewing the evidence, the Board finds that the benefit of the doubt favors the Veteran. Although the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) is not included in the general list of those that are thought to have a minimal or more exposure to asbestos, the Board also cannot rule out that the Veteran had some exposure to asbestos as he has described.  This is a fact-specific determination.  Moreover, the Veteran has been diagnosed with asbestos-related disabilities – namely, asbestosis and urogenital cancer. Significantly, the Veteran has provided a competent (and unrefuted) medical opinion that is supportive of his claims. The commenting physician considered the Veteran’s exposure history and was also familiar with his medical history. When considering those factors, as well as research supportive of the Veteran’s claims, the physician provided the required positive nexus opinion. Given this, and absent a conflicting medical opinion, the Board finds that service connection for asbestosis and bladder cancer is warranted. 

 
KEITH W. ALLEN
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	R. Erdheim, Counsel