Citation Nr: 18160805 Decision Date: 12/27/18 Archive Date: 12/27/18 DOCKET NO. 17-03 426 DATE: December 27, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for skin cancer is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran is not shown to have had any service in the Republic of Vietnam, including in inland waterways, and actual exposure to herbicides is not otherwise credibly shown and may not be presumed. 2. The Veteran’s prostate cancer is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to any disease, injury, or incident in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer have not been met; service connection may not be presumed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from July 1964 to July 1968. He had subsequent service in the Navy Reserve until December 1987. These matters come before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2016 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO). Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to herbicide exposure The Veteran contends that he incurred prostate cancer due to herbicide exposure during temporary additional duty (TAD) in Da Nang, Vietnam for three to four days around September 1966. See Correspondence, August 2015; Form 21-526EZ, June 2015. He reports that he was sent there from the U.S.S. Franklin D. Roosevelt to recover a downed aircraft. See Form 9, January 2017. As an initial matter, the Veteran’s service treatment records from his active service and subsequent reservist service do not show any prostate complaints. His July 1968 separation examination report shows examination of the prostate was normal. See Service treatment records, received September 1969 at p.9 of 35. Post-service, private treatment records from Urologic Specialists of New England show the Veteran reported hematuria in September 2012, and an October 2012 biopsy of the prostate revealed adenocarcinoma. See Records, received July 2015 at p.50 and 55. The Board acknowledges that prostate cancer is one of the diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. 3.309(e) for which service connection may be presumed in the case of certain herbicide-exposed veterans, which herbicide exposure may also be presumed if the Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam during his active service. See 38 C.F.R. 3.307(a)(6) (2017). In this case, however, none of the Veteran’s service records reflect that he ever served on land in the Republic of Vietnam, or in the inland or “brown” waterways. Regarding his contended TAD in Da Nang, the RO sent an inquiry to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSSRC). In July 2016, the JSSRC replied that a search of the U.S.S. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s deck logs for September 1966 and October 1966 was performed, as well as the command history for 1966. The aircraft carrier operated in the Gulf of Tonkin from August 7 to September 12 before departing the area to transit to Japan to return on October 2. The JSSRC response notes that it was shown in the records that one A-3 and two F-4s had to be diverted on October 2,1966 to Da Nang, but that they were diverted due to ship vibrations from the loss of a ship’s propeller blade on October 2 that precluded recovery of the undamaged aircraft. JSSRC noted that the incident reported by the Veteran was not shown, and the history and deck logs did not record any ship personnel being sent ashore in Vietnam to recover downed aircraft. The service personnel records include the Veteran’s enlisted performance evaluation for the period May 31, 1966 to November 16, 1966. The report addressed his service as an aviation electrician’s mate, second class, assigned to VF-14, shown by other records as embarked on USS Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was assigned to shop and line maintenance on F-4B aircraft and as assistant tool box petty officer. The report addresses his eagerness to learn, good personal appearance, and leadership skill but makes no mention of selection for an unusual mission to Da Nang to repair a damaged aircraft. Mention of this assignment during a seagoing deployment for a mid-level petty officer would have been appropriate and highly likely had it occurred. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran submitted a February 2017 buddy statement from S.S., and an April 2017 buddy statement from E.M., regarding the Veteran’s alleged TAD in Da Nang. S.S. and E.M. reported in their statements that they served in the VF-14 with the Veteran, and that he was sent to the air base in Da Nang to look at a downed phantom aircraft and perform repairs around September 1966. While the Board acknowledges these buddy statements, at the same time, neither wrote that they accompanied the Veteran in Vietnam. Also, as noted above, there is no record of the Veteran’s temporary assignment or transfer in his personnel records or in the ship’s deck logs, and there is no record of any downed aircraft incident as per the JSSRC response having researched the deck logs and command history. The logs did record the diverted aircraft in October showing that these events are logged. Therefore, while the Board acknowledges the account of the Veteran and his shipmates, the Board finds the weight of their statements is outweighed by the contemporaneous documentary evidence of record. The evidence of ship and squadron operations and the Veteran’s performance evaluation do not show that the squadron had damaged aircraft in Vietnam or that the Veteran was deployed to shore to Vietnam in September 1966 to repair damaged aircraft. Therefore, having found no service in Vietnam is shown, herbicide exposure may not be presumed. The Veteran’s description of actual exposure to herbicides was in Vietnam, which TAD the Board finds is not shown. Based thereon, without presumed or actual herbicide exposure, service connection for prostate cancer may not be presumed. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s prostate cancer is otherwise related to his active service on a direct basis. There is no evidence of prostate problems during his active service. Examination of the prostate at the time of separation was normal. The Board has reviewed all of the medical evidence of record, but there is no medical evidence or medical opinion tending to indicate that the Veteran’s prostate cancer is related to his active service. Therefore, the Board concludes that service connection is not warranted; as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule is not for application. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for skin cancer The Veteran also claims that he has skin cancer due to his active service, including as due to herbicide exposure in Vietnam. As an initial matter, the Veteran’s service treatment records from his active service do not show any treatment for skin cancer. His July 1968 separation examination report shows examination of his skin was normal. See Service treatment records, received September 1969 at p.9 of 35. A June 1987 report of medical history from the Veteran’s last year in the Navy Reserve shows the physician noted the Veteran had been diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma on his nose. See Service treatment records, received September 2015 at p.13; see also CAPRI, received April 2016 at p.104 (May 2000 noting a history of basal cell carcinoma). An August 2006 private treatment record from University Dermatology shows a biopsy of the right upper arm revealed keratoacanthomatous carcinoma. See Records, received June 2015 at p.31 of 36. This was later noted as squamous cell carcinoma in a September 2006 VA treatment record. See CAPRI, received April 2016 at p.92. The Board notes that squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma are not among those diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. 3.309(e) for which service connection may be presumed based on herbicide exposure. However, the Board takes notice that the Veteran’s private dermatology records from University Dermatology indicate that the Veteran’s skin cancer was caused by sun damage or photodamage. A January 2012 record notes “he has tremendous sun exposure over the course of his life as a Vietnam veteran and working in Cuba. He has had multiple skin cancers. . . He has rather severe sun damage on his face, upper back, anterior chest, and on his upper extremities. . . scars on various places secondary to his previous BCC treatments.” See Records, received June 2015 at p.22; see also p.11, 13, and 18. Similarly, an April 2009 record notes “photodamage.” See id. at p.25. Although the Veteran’s service records do not reflect service in Vietnam, they do show he served on an assignment in Cuba. Overall, the Board finds that these dermatology records raise the question as to whether the Veteran incurred sun damage to his skin during his active service in the Navy, and during his subsequent reservist service for another 19 years, that caused his skin cancers. See Service treatment records, received September 2015 at p.6 of 8; Personnel records, received June 2015 at p.120 of 137. The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination relating to his claimed skin cancer. In light of all of the above, the Board finds this matter should be remanded so that the Veteran may be afforded a VA examination to address the nature and etiology of his claim skin cancer, and to include eliciting information regarding his history of sun exposure. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Afford the Veteran a VA examination to address the nature and etiology of his claimed skin cancer. The complete claims folder must be provided to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination, including a copy of this remand, and the examiner must note that the claims folder has been reviewed. The examiner should opine as to whether it is “at least as likely as not” that the Veteran has skin cancer, or any residuals of skin cancer, that are related to his active service. Ask the VA examiner to closely review the University Dermatology records received in June 2015 (see p.11, 13, 18, 22, and 25) and to address whether the Veteran has skin cancer or residuals of skin cancer, such as scars, due to sun damage during his active service from July 1964 to July 1968, and his subsequent service in the Navy Reserves until December 1987. Ask the examiner to elicit the Veteran’s history of sun exposure. Any opinion must be accompanied by a complete rationale. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Juliano, Counsel