Citation Nr: 20021086 Decision Date: 03/24/20 Archive Date: 03/24/20 DOCKET NO. 17-35 353 DATE: March 24, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, claimed as due to exposure to herbicide agents and/or other chemicals is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from July 1975 to September 1992. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2016 rating decision, which denied service connection for prostate cancer. In January 2020, a videoconference hearing was held before the undersigned; a transcript is in the Veteran’s record. The Board notes that at the January 2020 hearing there was some confusion as to whether the instant appeal is an original claim or a claim to reopen. Upon complete review of the record, the Board finds that the instant claim is an original claim; as the Veteran is not prejudiced by such finding, and remand is necessary for proper development of the claim (as discussed below), the Board will proceed with the appeal on the merits. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer Review of the record found that further development is necessary for proper consideration of the claim on appeal. The Veteran’s primary theory of entitlement to the benefit sought is one of presumptive service connection under 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). He specifically contends that his prostate cancer (diagnosed in 2000, nearly 8 years after separation from service) is due to alleged exposed to herbicide agents (Agent Orange) when he visited the Korean DMZ during service at Camp Red Cloud in Korea. See January 2020 Board hearing transcript. The Veteran served in Korea from August 1989 to August 1990. The record contains an August 2016 Formal Finding of lack of information required to corroborate exposure to Agent Orange in Korea; the memorandum notes that he served in Korea well after herbicide exposure was conceded (1968-1971). However, the Veteran has set forth an alternate theory of entitlement. He contends that his prostate cancer is related to alleged exposure to chemicals in service, particularly trichlorethylene (TCE) while serving at Fort Ord, California See October 2016 Notice of Disagreement. In support of his claim, he submitted an internet article which notes that Fort Ord closed in 1994 and was placed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund list. One section of the article states that “Unlined landfills are leaking TriChloroEthylene and Carbon TetraChloride intro groundwater…” Above this section the Veteran wrote, “Linked to prostate cancer.” [A cursory internet search shows articles which report that prostate cancer may be associated with TCE exposure.] The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has not adequately developed the claim with respect to the Veteran’s newer-raised (additional) theory of entitlement. Specifically, the record does not include adequate development or findings regarding exposure to TCE and carbon tetrachloride chemicals in service, or adequate development of medical evidence regarding whether the claimed disability may be related to exposure to any such elements. If exposure to such elements in service is shown, a medical opinion addressing whether his prostate cancer may be related to such exposures would be necessary. [The Board notes that in a June 2016 statement, the Veteran expressed a belief that he was exposed to “hazardous materials and waste”, particularly TCE, in the soil at Camp Red Cloud and/or the DMZ, but did not specify a specific exposure incident. Development of such contention should also be addressed on remand.] Remand is also necessary to obtain private treatment records that appear to be outstanding. VA treatment records show that the Veteran has received non-VA prostate treatment from Dr. S.W., a private treating urologist; the record shows that Dr. S.W. performed the initial radical prostatectomy in 2000, performed salvage radiation therapy in 2006, and saw him at least annually between those procedures (and for some period of years thereafter). See November 6, 2007 and January 14, 2014 VA treatment records. Records of the 2000 surgery have been associated with the file, but records of all other treatment by Dr. S.W. remain outstanding, and should be obtained. Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The matter is REMANDED for the following: 1. Secure for the record updated (to the present, all not already associated with the record) complete clinical records of VA evaluations and treatment the Veteran has received for prostate cancer. Also ask him to provide identifying information regarding all private evaluations and treatment he has received for prostate cancer, and to submit authorizations for VA to secure for the record complete (all outstanding) clinical records from all providers identified, specifically including from Dr. S.W. (his non-VA urologist). Obtain those records. 2. Arrange for all development in the matter deemed necessary, and make a formal finding for the record regarding the occurrence, nature and extent of the Veteran’s asserted exposures to TCE and carbon tetrachloride (specifically considering/addressing his allegation of exposure to such in the soil/groundwater) at Camp Red Cloud, Korea from August 1989 – August 1990 and at Fort Ord, California from September 1990 – September 1992. 3. If, and only if, he is determined to have been exposed to TCE or carbon tetrachloride in service, forward the record to an appropriate physician for review and an advisory medical opinion regarding the likely etiology of his prostate cancer, and specifically whether it is related to any acknowledged environmental exposures in service. The consulting provider should offer an opinion that responds to the following: Identify the likely etiology of the Veteran’s prostate cancer. Specifically, is it at least as likely as not (a 50% or greater probability) that it is etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service, to include as due to any exposure in service acknowledged by the AOJ? The examiner should include rationale with all opinions, citing to supporting factual data and medical literature/treatise, as deemed appropriate. GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Dupont, 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.