Citation Nr: 20004673 Decision Date: 01/21/20 Archive Date: 01/21/20 DOCKET NO. 15-04 156 DATE: January 21, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents and/or to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for Lewy body dementia, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents and/or to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that Parkinson’s disease began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that Lewy body dementia began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for Parkinson’s disease are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for Lewy body dementia are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from December 1965 to December 1967. He died in March 2016, and his surviving spouse has been substituted as the appellant. This matter is on appeal from a November 2014 rating decision and was previously remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in June 2018. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 1. Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents and/or to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune The appellant contends that the Veteran's Parkinson’s disease was related to in-service exposure to herbicide agents and/or contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. March 2015 correspondence; March 2017 claim. Prior to his death, the Veteran contended that his Parkinson’s disease was due to exposure to ionization, asbestos, and various chemicals during service. November 2014 notice of disagreement (NOD). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran had a disability that began during service or was at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran had a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease beginning in 2013, decades after separation from service, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or was otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The only in-service injuries, events, or diseases reported by the Veteran and appellant are exposure to herbicide agents, contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, ionization, asbestos, and various chemicals. Initially, the Board acknowledges that Parkinson’s disease is a disability presumptively related to both herbicide agents and contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), (f). However, the evidence fails to support a finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents or contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. Regarding exposure to herbicide agents, the Veteran’s DD 214 reflects no foreign service. His personnel records show he was stationed in California and Hawaii throughout his active military service with enlistment in Nevada and training in Illinois prior to service. The appellant, in October 2014 correspondence, reported that the Veteran was based at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. In March 2015, the representative submitted documentation showing that the Department of Defense (DoD) tested herbicide agents in Kapaa, Hawaii; Mauna Loa, Hawaii; Hilo, Hawaii; and Kauai, Hawaii. The Veteran’s personnel records fail to show that he was in any of those locations during his service. His personnel records also do not show that he was ever stationed at Camp Lejeune. The case was remanded in 2018 to obtain further information from the appellant regarding the reported exposures to herbicide agents and contaminated water at Camp Lejeune; no response was received. Consequently, exposures to herbicide agents and contaminated water has not been confirmed. While the appellant believes the Veteran's Parkinson’s disease was related to in-service exposure to herbicide agents and/or contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, the Board reiterates that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that such occurred. The Veteran also reported exposure to ionization, asbestos, and various chemicals. Parkinson’s disease is not a “radiogenic disease.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b)(2)(i). No medical professional has provided any opinion relating the Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease to his military service, including his contended exposure to ionization, asbestos, and various chemicals. None of the treatment records suggest any relationship to the Veteran’s military service. Furthermore, the appellant has not provided any information regarding a current nexus between the Veteran's Parkinson’s disease and military service, to include exposure to ionization, asbestos, and various chemicals. Absent such evidence, there is no reasonable likelihood that a VA medical opinion would result in findings favorable to the appellant; a VA medical opinion is therefore not “necessary.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). While the Veteran believed, and appellant believes, his Parkinson’s disease was related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, neither has demonstrated the training or credentials to provide a competent nexus opinion, or opinion as to onset of diagnosis in this case. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the evidence failing to show a relationship to service. 2. Entitlement to service connection for Lewy body dementia, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents and/or to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune The appellant contends that the Veteran’s Lewy body dementia was related to in-service exposure to herbicide agents and/or contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. March 2015 correspondence; March 2017 claim. Prior to his death, the Veteran contended that his Lewy body dementia was due to exposure to ionization, asbestos, and various chemicals during service. November 2014 NOD. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran had a disability that began during service or was at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran had a diagnosis of Lewy body dementia beginning in 2013, decades after separation from service, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or was otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. While argument submitted by the representative in June 2018 suggests a relationship between Parkinson’s disease and dementia, since service connection for Parkinson’s disease is denied, the Board need not address service connection on a secondary basis. The only in-service injuries, events, or diseases reported by the Veteran and appellant are exposure to herbicide agents, contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, ionization, asbestos, and various chemicals. For the reasons set forth above, the Board has concluded that exposure to herbicide agents and contaminated water at Camp Lejeune has not been shown. Regarding other exposures, Lewy body dementia is not a “radiogenic disease.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b)(2)(i). No medical professional has provided any opinion relating the Veteran’s Lewy body dementia to his military service, including his contended exposure to ionization, asbestos, and various chemicals. None of the treatment records suggest any relationship to the Veteran’s military service. Furthermore, the appellant has not provided any information regarding a current nexus between the Veteran’s Lewy body dementia and military service, to include exposure to ionization, asbestos, and various chemicals. Absent such evidence, there is no reasonable likelihood that a VA medical opinion would result in findings favorable to the appellant; a VA medical opinion is therefore not “necessary.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). While the Veteran believed, and appellant believes, his Lewy body dementia was related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, neither has demonstrated the training or credentials to provide a competent nexus opinion, or opinion as to onset of diagnosis in this case. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the evidence failing to show a relationship to service. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Barstow, 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.