Citation Nr: 18153125 Decision Date: 11/27/18 Archive Date: 11/27/18 DOCKET NO. 13-06 581A DATE: November 27, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus (diabetes) is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder, to include atrial fibrillation and ischemic heart disease (IHD), is denied. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is denied. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied. Entitlement to service connection for hypothyroidism, claimed as obesity, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for cataracts is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The weight of the competent and probative evidence is against finding in-service herbicide agent exposure. 2. The weight of the competent and probative evidence is against finding that diabetes had its onset during or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of service. 3. The weight of the competent and probative evidence is against finding that a heart disorder, to include atrial fibrillation and IHD, had its onset during or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of service. 4. The weight of the competent and probative evidence is against finding that prostate cancer had its onset during or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of service. 5. The weight of the competent and probative evidence is against finding that hypertension had its onset during or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of service. 6. The weight of the competent and probative evidence is against finding that hypothyroidism (claimed as obesity) had its onset during or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of service. 7. The weight of the competent and probative evidence is against finding that cataracts had their onset during or are otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for diabetes have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder, to include atrial fibrillation and IHD, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hypothyroidism (claimed as obesity) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 6. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for cataracts have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from March 1965 to October 1968. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2011 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2015, the Veteran and his spouse, in Detroit, Michigan, testified before the undersigned at a videoconference hearing. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the virtual file and reviewed. This case was previously before the Board in March 2016, at which time it was remanded for further development. As the requested development has been completed, no further action to ensure compliance with the remand directives is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). As a general matter, establishing service connection requires competent evidence of (1) the existence of 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 present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service, the diseases set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) will be presumed to be related to such service if they become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, with an exception not applicable to this case. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). The Veteran is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by his senses. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a). In relevant part, 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) requires that VA give “due consideration” to “all pertinent medical and lay evidence” in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57-58 (1990). 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes. 2. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder, to include atrial fibrillation and IHD. 4. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. 5. Entitlement to service connection for hypothyroidism, claimed as obesity. 6. Entitlement to service connection for cataracts. After a review of the record, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection for diabetes; a heart disorder, to include atrial fibrillation and IHD; prostate cancer; hypertension, hypothyroidism (claimed as obesity); and cataracts have not been met. As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the Veteran does not contend, and the evidence does not show, that any of the claimed disorders developed during service. See 04/15/2015, Hearing Testimony. The service treatment records, including an October 1968 separation examination, are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or diagnoses related to the claims on appeal. 04/14/2010, STR-Exam; 04/14/2010, STR-Medical. Rather, the Veteran contends that all of the claimed disorders are due to in-service herbicide agent exposure. In-service herbicide agent exposure is presumed for veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period from January 9, 1962, to May 7, 1975, as well as for certain service in or near the Korean Demilitarized Zone and work on C-123 aircraft. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). The Veteran does not contend, and the evidence does not show, that he had active service which would warrant a presumption of in-service herbicide agent exposure. See 04/12/2016, Military Personnel Record. However, in-service herbicide agent exposure may nevertheless be demonstrated by evidence on a facts-found basis. The Veteran contends that he was exposed to herbicide agents while deployed to Kincheloe Air Force Base (AFB) in the Michigan Upper Peninsula; Lajes Field in the Azores Islands, Portugal; and Hamilton AFB in Novato, California. A May 2012 memorandum indicates that the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) was unable to document any Agent Orange storage, transportation, or usage at the Azores Islands, or that the Veteran handled equipment next to barrels that contained Agent Orange. 05/29/2012, DPRIS Response; see also 05/29/2012, VA Memo. A November 2016 memorandum by the JSRRC indicates that Kincheloe AFB is not a listed location of herbicide agent spray areas outside of the Republic of Vietnam. Additionally, research did not demonstrate unit personnel being exposed to Agent Orange or tactical herbicides while performing their daily duty assignments in, around, or near unit aircraft at Kincheloe AFB, nor did historical information document the use, testing, spraying, or storage of Agent Orange or tactical herbicides at Kincheloe AFB during June through July 1966. 11/04/2016, DPRIS Response; see also 12/07/2016, VA Memo. A January 2017 VA memorandum reflects that Department of Defense documentation shows two instances of tactical herbicide (including Agent Orange) testing, in California, neither of which were at Hamilton ABF or during the period in which the Veteran was stationed in California. There is no other record of the use, testing or storage of Agent Orange or other tactical herbicides in California. 01/04/2017, VA Memo. The Board acknowledges treatment records indicating a history of Agent Orange exposure in the personal medial history, as well as a cardiac history reflecting the Veteran’s report of herbicide agent exposure. 04/15/2015, Medical-Government. To the extent the notation of a history of Agent Orange exposure is based on the Veteran’s self-reporting, more weight is given to the research performed by the JSRRC than the conclusory statements made by the Veteran. Second, to the extent such notations qualify as a medical opinion, those records are assigned little probative weight, as they are not supported by a rationale or competent evidence. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). Accordingly, the Board finds that the weight of the competent and probative evidence is against finding herbicide agent exposure during service; thus, service connection is not warranted on that basis. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for cataracts and hypothyroidism as secondary to diabetes, and service connection for hypertension as secondary to diabetes and a heart disorder; however, as service connection has been denied for diabetes and a heart disorder herein, service connection is not warranted on that basis. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the weight of the competent and probative evidence is against finding that diabetes; a heart disorder, to include atrial fibrillation and IHD; prostate cancer; hypertension, hypothyroidism (claimed as obesity); or cataracts had their onset during or are otherwise related to the Veteran’s period of service, to include due to claimed herbicide agent exposure. The Board further finds that the weight of the competent and probative evidence is against finding that a heart disorder, hypertension, or diabetes manifested to a compensable degree within a year of discharge or were noted in service with continuity of symptomatology since. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309; Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 495-97 (1997). Accordingly, service connection for the Veteran’s claims is denied. In arriving at the decision to deny the claims, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims, that doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53-56. Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.A. Gelber, Associate Counsel