Citation Nr: 18154567 Decision Date: 11/30/18 Archive Date: 11/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-50 920 DATE: November 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer and residuals is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has prostate cancer or any residuals thereof due to an event, injury or disease in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer and residuals have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1971 to May 1973. In July 2015, the Veteran filed a claim seeking service connection for prostate cancer and residuals thereof, which he claims is a result of exposure to herbicides while stationed in Korea. The Veteran’s claim was denied in an October 2015 rating decision, and the Veteran appealed. The matter is now before the Board for adjudication. Duty to Notify and Assist The Veteran has not raised any issues with the duty to notify. 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”). The Board also finds that the duty to assist requirements have been fulfilled. All relevant, identified, and available evidence has been obtained, and VA has notified the appellant of any evidence that could not be obtained. The Veteran has not referred to any additional, unobtained, relevant, available evidence. Thus, the Board finds that VA has satisfied the duty to assist. No further notice or assistance to the Veteran is required to fulfill VA’s duty to assist in development. Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227 (2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (2001); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). Service Connection 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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer and residuals. The Veteran contends that his prostate cancer and residuals are a result of his military service, which included service in Korea. 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, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of prostate cancer and residuals, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s diagnosis began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). Service treatment records are silent as to any complaint, diagnosis or treatment of prostate cancer. The March 1973 Exit Report of Medical Examination reflects a normal examination with only a defect in vision noted. Post-service VA treatment records from the Yale CBOC are associated with the Veteran’s case file. These records reflect the Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer in February 2013; that he underwent a prostatectomy in February 2014; and, that he currently has residuals which include urinary and fecal incontinence. However, none of these records provide a link or nexus between the diagnosed disorders and the Veteran’s military service. The Board has determined there is simply no medical evidence of record to support a link between the Veteran’s current prostate cancer, or any residuals thereof, and his military service. None of the Veteran’s treatment providers have provided such evidence, nor is there any indication that any such disorder began during the Veteran’s service. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements, but while the Veteran is competent to report having experienced symptoms of prostate cancer, he is not competent determine the etiology of his diagnosed prostate cancer. The issue is medically complex, and requires knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body and interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board has also considered that prostate cancer is a presumptive disease for diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents under 38 C.F.R. §3.307(a)(6)(iv). Under this provision, there is a presumption of herbicide exposure for Veterans who served in the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) between April 1, 1968 and August 31, 1971, or in certain military units operating in or near the DMZ where herbicides are known to have been applied during that time period. As it pertains to this case, however, military records show that the Veteran was stationed in Korea from October 1971 to December 1972, which is outside of the exposure dates. In addition, the evidence shows that the Veteran was stationed at Camp Humphries in Korea, which is approximately 60 miles outside of the DMZ. He is not shown to have served in any military unit identified as having operated in or near the DMZ during the period in question. For these reasons, the Veteran may not be presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents in service. Furthermore, as to the Veteran’s reports of herbicide and chemical use while in Korea, the Board observes that the Veteran is competent to report that defoliants were used. However, he is not competent to opine that this localized herbicide use utilized the type of chemicals that constitute an “herbicide agent” for the purposes of service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. The Veteran has presented no evidence that such a chemical that would meet the definition of an herbicide agent for VA purposes was used during the time he was in Korea, nor has he submitted evidence to show that he is competent to render an opinion as to the chemical makeup of any substances used at that time. In light of the foregoing and given that the Veteran’s service in Korea was not along the DMZ where herbicides were used, was not between April 1, 1968 and August 31, 1971 or with one of the identified military units presumed to have been exposed to herbicides while serving in Korea, and in the absence of any other probative evidence of herbicide exposure, exposure to herbicide agents is not presumed and service connection is not warranted on a presumptive basis for prostate cancer. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer and residuals, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. CAROLINE B. FLEMING Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Jiggetts, Associate Counsel