Citation Nr: 20021314 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 17-19 418 DATE: March 25, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for chronic kidney disease, to include as due to exposure to chemicals and/or nonionizing radiation, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for myasthenia gravis, to include as to due to exposure to chemicals and/or nonionizing radiation, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had service in the United States Navy and Navy Reserve. He had a period of active duty service from June 1962 to August 1966, and a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from September 1, 1968 to September 14, 1968. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision. In January 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript from that proceeding is associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for chronic kidney disease, to include as due to exposure to chemicals and/or nonionizing radiation, is remanded; and entitlement to service connection for myasthenia gravis, to include as due to exposure to chemicals and/or nonionizing radiation, are remanded. The record indicates that the Veteran has current diagnoses for chronic kidney disease and myasthenia gravis. See March 2017 and September 2017 Private treatment records. He has not yet been afforded VA examinations in relation to his service connection claims for these disorders. The Veteran has indicated that the disorders at issue are related to his in-service exposure to several environmental hazards. See March 2015 Statement. The Veteran reported that he was exposed to different chemicals while stationed at certain locations. The Veteran identified one location as the Naval Submarine Base New London, a base at which his military personnel records show he was stationed from February 1963 to April 1963. See February 2020 Statement. He also submitted a newspaper article that identified the base as a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site. In a January 2020 statement, the Veteran additionally cited to a report from a book that there were cleanup efforts to address polluted soil at Camp Nimitz in San Diego. The Veteran reported that he entered boot camp at San Diego in 1962, and his personnel records also show that he was at the Naval Training Center, San Diego (later named Camp Nimitiz) in June 1962. The Veteran further indicated that he had service in Iceland at a radar station located in the Distant Early Warning (DEW) line, and he submitted an article stating that the Department of National Defense was undertaking a cleanup effort to address environmental hazards at sites that were part of the DEW line. The Veteran’s military personnel records show he had service at the Naval Station in Keflavik, Iceland in from May 1963 to May 1964. The Veteran also reported being exposed to dust associated with an eruption from Volcano Surtsey in Iceland on November 14, 1963. See March 2015 Statement. In addition, the Veteran reported in-service exposure to Roundup during his boot camp in San Diego. See January 2020 Board Hearing Transcript. On remand, the AOJ should take any appropriate steps to attempt to verify the claimed chemical exposure. In addition, the Veteran contended that he was exposed beryllium during his service at the Norfolk Naval Station Virginia, and at a Navy installation in Rota, Spain. In support of this theory, the Veteran submitted an internet article indicating that the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) had provided data to show that beryllium had been detected at these locations. See Article received in February 2020. The Veteran also reported that he was further exposed to beryllium while working with electron tubes and electronic components as a radioman in Keflavik, Iceland and Rota, Spain. See February 2020 Statement. In this regard, the Veteran submitted a Beryllium Fact Sheet from the official website of the state of New Jersey that stated it was used in the manufacture of electron tubes and electronic components. Although the Veteran’s DD 214 did not list a specific occupational title, it noted that the related civilian occupation would be control-room man (radio and television broadcast). The Veteran’s military personnel records also indicate that the Veteran had service at the Naval Schools Command in Norfolk, VA from September 1962 to February 1963; and at the Naval Station in Rota, Spain from July 1964 until August 1966. The Veteran also reported that he was exposed to fumes from airplanes that included benzenes at different locations, including the Naval Training Center in San Diego, and the Naval Station in Rota, Spain. In addition, the Veteran asserted that he was exposed to EMFs (electric and magnetic fields) or radiation during service. See Electric & Magnetic Fields, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/index.cfm. Although EMFs include both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, the Veteran has only identified exposures to forms of non-ionizing radiation that occurred while at his duty station in Iceland that was part of the DEW line. See March 2015 Statement. The Veteran noted that his duties at this location included monitoring, tuning, and maintaining large transmitters and receivers. The specific forms of non-ionizing radiation identified by the Veteran include extremely low frequency (ELF), microwaves from antennae and troposcatter, and radiofrequency from radar. See Non-Ionizing Radiation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiation_nonionizing/index.html. Furthermore, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has taken judicial notice that radar equipment emits microwave-type, non-ionizing radiation. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 69 (1997). The Board notes that non-ionizing exposure from radio or radar equipment is not the type of radiation exposure addressed by the VA regulations found at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.309 and 3.311, which address exposure to ionizing radiation. The Board finds that this evidence discussed meets the low threshold as set forth in McLendon to secure a VA medical examination and opinion in connection with these claims. Further, the Board is prohibited from relying on its own unsubstantiated medical judgment in the resolution of a claim. See Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991) Although the Veteran’s military personnel records reflect that the Veteran’s Navy Reserve service included a period of ACDUTRA in September 1968, it is unclear whether there were any additional periods of ACDUTRA or periods of active duty or inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). Consequently, efforts to verify this service should be made on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should contact the National Personnel Records Center, the Records Management Center, the Veteran's unit(s), or any other appropriate entity, to verify the dates of his military service in the Navy Reserve. In particular, the AOJ should verify any periods of active duty, ACDUTRA, and INACDUTRA. To the extent possible, the AOJ should then prepare a summary of the dates of active duty, ACDUTRA, and INACDUTRA. The summary should be associated with the claims file. 2. The AOJ should take any appropriate steps to attempt to verify the Veteran's claimed exposure to chemicals while the Veteran was stationed at the Naval Training Center, San Diego; the Naval Schools Command in Norfolk, VA; the Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, Connecticut; the Naval Station in Keflavik, Iceland; and the Naval Station in Rota, Spain. The AOJ should note that the Veteran's military personnel records reflect that he had active duty service at the Naval Training Center, San Diego in June 1962; the Naval Schools Command in Norfolk, VA from September 1962 to February 1963; the Naval Submarine Base New London from February 1963 to April 1963; the Naval Station in Keflavik, Iceland in from May 1963 to May 1964; and the Naval Station in Rota, Spain from July 1964 until August 1966. The Veteran has claimed exposure to several different chemicals at these sites, as detailed in statements submitted in January and February 2020. Included among the Veteran’s contentions are his reports of exposure to Roundup while at the Naval Training Center in San Diego; dust associated with an eruption from the Volcano Surtsey in Iceland on November 14, 1963; and contaminated water in Rota, Spain that included lead. All attempts and responses should be documented in the claims file. 3. After completing the preceding development in paragraphs 1 through 2, schedule a VA examination in relation to the Veteran's service connection claim for chronic kidney disease. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary should be performed. The examiner should review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran's service treatment records, post-service medical records, and assertions. A clear explanation for all opinions based on specific facts of the case as well as relevant medical principles is needed. The Veteran is competent to attest to observable symptoms. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should state whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. If a diagnosis is not found, the examiner should address the March 2017 private treatment record that noted the Kidney disease, chronic, stage III, on a problem list. If a diagnosis is identified, the examiner should provide an opinion as to the following questions: (a) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that such disorder manifested during, or was otherwise related to a period of active duty service and/or ACDUTRA, to include the Veteran's exposure to chemicals and/or nonionizing radiation therein. In providing an opinion, the examiner should address the Veteran’s reports of in-service exposure to beryllium in his work with electron tubes and electronic components as a radioman; in-service exposure to fumes from airplanes that included benzenes; and in-service exposure to non-ionizing radiation that included extremely low frequency (ELF), microwaves from antennae and troposcatter, and radiofrequency from radar. (b) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that such disorder was related to an injury during a period of INACDUTRA. 4. After completing the preceding development in paragraphs 1 through 2, schedule a VA examination in relation to the Veteran's service connection claim for myasthenia gravis. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary should be performed. The examiner should review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran's service treatment records, post-service medical records, and assertions. A clear explanation for all opinions based on specific facts of the case as well as relevant medical principles is needed. The Veteran is competent to attest to observable symptoms. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should state whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of myasthenia gravis. If a diagnosis is not found, the examiner should address the September 2017 private treatment record that noted an impression of myasthenia gravis. If a diagnosis is identified, the examiner should provide an opinion as to the following questions: (a) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that such disorder manifested during, or was otherwise related to a period of active duty service and/or ACDUTRA, to include the Veteran's exposure to chemicals and/or nonionizing radiation therein. In providing an opinion, the examiner should address the Veteran’s reports of in-service exposure to beryllium in his work with electron tubes and electronic components as a radioman; in-service exposure to fumes from airplanes that included benzenes; and in-service exposure to non-ionizing radiation that included extremely low frequency (ELF), microwaves from antennae and troposcatter, and radiofrequency from radar. (b) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that such disorder was related to an injury during a period of INACDUTRA. 6. Then readjudicate the claim. If the benefits sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative must be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given an appropriate opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further consideration. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K.C. Spragins, 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.