Citation Nr: 18110232
Decision Date: 06/11/18	Archive Date: 06/11/18

DOCKET NO. 15-02 340
DATE:	June 11, 2018
REMANDED
Service connection for multiple myeloma is remanded.
 
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from December 1965 to December 1968.  
The case is on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision.
In April 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing.  At that time, he submitted an article on x-ray radiation along with a waiver of review of this evidence by the RO.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c).
Service connection for multiple myeloma.
The Veteran seeks service connection for multiple myeloma based on his exposure to radiation during service.  See, e.g., January 2014 statement from Veteran.  See also Board Hearing Transcript, pp. 3-4.  In support of his contention he has submitted articles regarding a possible relationship between radiation and myeloma.  See articles submitted by Veteran in January 2015 and April 2018.
Military records confirm that the Veteran worked as a Hawk Radar Mechanic and VA medical records reflect a diagnosis of and show treatment for myeloma.  See VA Hematology-Oncology records dated in October 2013.
One of the primary reasons the claim was denied is for a lack of finding for in-service exposure to radiation that is considered ionizing.  Although some development was undertaken, the result was no official service records were found as to this possibility.  However, the Veteran maintains that the equipment he worked with resulted in ionizing radiation as well.  Thus, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.311 should be followed to first determine whether the Veteran was exposed to ionizing radiation during service and for a dose estimate.
If it is determined that there was no exposure to ionizing radiation, including from use of the referenced equipment, this should be explained.  If there is a positive dose estimate, then the remainder of the provisions for claims based on ionizing radiation should be followed.
In any case there is at least an indication that the Veteran’s current myeloma may be related to in-service radiation exposure even if not ionizing in nature.  Therefore, if the dose estimate for ionizing radiation is zero, a VA examination should be conducted in this regard.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1.  Follow the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.311 to determine whether the Veteran was exposed to ionizing radiation from working with military equipment, including the Hawk Radar, and a dose estimate.  If it is determined that there was no exposure to ionizing radiation, including from use of the referenced equipment, this should be explained.
2.  If there is a positive dose estimate, then the remainder of the provisions for claims based on ionizing radiation should be followed.
3.  If the dose estimate for ionizing radiation is zero, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of his myeloma.
The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has myeloma that is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including any exposure to non-ionizing radiation from his work with military equipment, such as the Hawk Radar.
(Continued on the next page)
 
In formulating the requested opinion, comment on the proposition, in the articles submitted by the Veteran, of an association between radar radiation and myeloma.
 
RYAN T. KESSEL
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	P. Childers, Counsel