Citation Nr: 19191718 Decision Date: 12/05/19 Archive Date: 12/05/19 DOCKET NO. 16-57 759 DATE: December 5, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer with incontinence and voiding dysfunction is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his prostate cancer with incontinence and voiding dysfunction is at least as likely as not related to his service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer with incontinence and voiding dysfunction are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018).   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Air Force from May 1979 to May 1999. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the Board at a hearing in October 2019. A transcript of the hearing is of record. At the hearing, the Veteran was granted a 30-day abeyance period for the submission of additional evidence to support his claim. The Veteran submitted additional evidence in October 2019 without a waiver. For all substantive appeals received on or after February 2, 2013, any evidence submitted to the Board shall be subject to initial review by the Board unless the Veteran or the Veteran’s representative requests in writing that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) initially review such evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(e). As the Veteran filed his VA Form 9, Substantive Appeal, in this matter in November 2016, a waiver is unnecessary. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer with incontinence and voiding dysfunction is granted. The Veteran and his representative contend the Veteran’s prostate cancer with incontinence and voiding dysfunction is due to his in-service exposure to cadmium as an aircraft mechanic. See VA Form 21-0958, Notice of Disagreement (NOD), dated April 12, 2016; Board Hearing Transcript, dated October 4, 2019. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability of prostate cancer with incontinence and voiding dysfunction that is related to his active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). An October 2011 biopsy of the prostate showed adenocarcinoma. Furthermore, an October 2014 private treatment record contains diagnoses of prostate cancer and urinary frequency. In addition, a June 2014 private disability benefits questionnaire reflects that the Veteran has residual voiding dysfunction. As to the Veteran’s contention that his prostate cancer with incontinence and voiding dysfunction is due to in-service exposure to cadmium as an aircraft mechanic, the Veteran’s service personnel records reflect the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) was a tactical aircraft maintenance F-15 craftsman. In addition, the Veteran’s service personnel records contain performance evaluations from 1991 to 1994 that contain a description of his duties. The description of his duties includes in part “[r]epairs and maintains the aircraft to include removal, installation, and adjustment of aircraft system components such as flight controls, shocks, struts, wheels, brakes, tires, hoses, and tubing. Contributes to corrosion control program by conducting periodic aircraft washes and lubrications. Services oil, fuel, hydraulic, and oxygen systems.” The Board acknowledges that the 1991 to 1994 performance evaluations are for a period in which the Veteran was stationed at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina, and that the Veteran stated at his October 2019 Board hearing that he came into contact with cadmium while stationed in Europe. See Board Hearing Transcript, dated October 4, 2019, page 4. The record does not contain any of the Veteran’s military personnel records while stationed in Europe; however, service treatment records in 1990 place the Veteran in Europe at that time. Also, the Veteran’s DD 214 reflects that he was a tactical aircraft maintenance F-15 craftsman for twenty years, which would cover the period when he was in Europe, and which indicates he would have been completing the same duties while in Europe as are reflected in the 1991 to 1994 performance reports. In addition, the Veteran stated at his Board hearing that he knew he was exposed to cadmium because cadmium was on the labels of the machine elements with which he worked and that the material safety data sheets indicated that cadmium was in the materials used. He also indicated that he was not required to wear safety equipment because the harmful effects of cadmium were not known at that time. He indicated that through his work he would get substances on his hands and skin and would have been breathing the substance in as well. See Board Hearing Transcript, dated October 4, 2019, pages 4, 5, 7.   Furthermore, in October 2019, T.W., submitted a buddy statement in which T.W. states that he served in the Air Force as an aircraft mechanic and crew chief for 20 years, and that “basically all crew chiefs were exposed to vari[ous] oils, greases, lubricants, hydraulic fluid, chemical cleaners and aviation fuel.” T.W. then stated that cadmium grease was used in numerous maintenance procedures. The Board finds the Veteran to be competent to report that he saw cadmium written on labels and in material safety data sheets for the materials used in the course of his military occupational specialty because as a lay person he is competent to report what he personally observed during his service. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Furthermore, the Board finds T.W. to be competent to report what he and other aircraft mechanics used cadmium grease in maintenance procedures because T.W. is competent as a layperson to report what he personally observed and utilized as part of his job duties during his service. Therefore, the Board finds the Veteran’s and T.W.’s statements to be both competent and credible evidence of in-service exposure to cadmium as the statements are consistent with the record. Thus, the question becomes whether the Veteran’s current disability is related to his in-service exposure to cadmium. On this question, Dr. D.G., a private physician, provided a probative opinion in favor of the Veteran’s claim. Dr. D.G. opined in November 2014 that “it is more likely than not that [the Veteran’s] prostate cancer is the result of his long term exposure to carcinogens (specifically cadmium and cadmium compounds) due to his military service.” In support of the opinion, Dr. D.G. noted that he reviewed the Veteran’s medical records, service personnel records, and the exposures he had as an aircraft mechanic. In addition, he noted that the Veteran does not have other known risk factors for prostate cancer. The Board places great weight of probative value on the opinion of Dr. D.G. as the opinion is consistent with the record, and the opinion reflects consideration of the Veteran’s history, including his military occupational specialty and the competent and credible evidence of in-service exposure to cadmium. Dr. D.G. also provides a clear rationale for his conclusion.  Thus, the Board resolves any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and concludes that the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) have been met. As such, service connection for the Veteran’s prostate cancer with incontinence and voiding dysfunction is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Breitbach, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.