Citation Nr: 20021754 Decision Date: 03/26/20 Archive Date: 03/26/20 DOCKET NO. 19-27 975 DATE: March 26, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for testicular cancer is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1990 to March 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2019 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Entitlement to service connection for testicular cancer is remanded. The Veteran contends that his diagnosed testicular cancer was caused by active service. The Veteran underwent VA examinations in December 2018 and May 2019. Both reports determined that there was no relationship between the Veteran’s service and his claimed disability. In August 2019 the Veteran directed the Board’s attention to a research study examining whether testicular cancer is related to Gulf War deployment. The study concluded that testicular was found to be the only significantly increased cancer among deployed Persian Gulf War veterans. The data suggested that testicular cancer may be related to military deployment. VA examiners were not provided an opportunity to consider the submitted study. In light of this new information, an addendum opinion is required to clarify whether a nexus exists between the Veteran’s service, to include Gulf War syndrome and his diagnosed testicular cancer. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s testicular cancer is at least as likely as not related to active service, to include Gulf War Syndrome. (a.) The examiner must address the findings in the article “Is testicular cancer related to Gulf War deployment? Evidence from a pilot population-based study of Gulf War era veterans and cancer registries.” Military Medicine 2005; 170: 149–53. (b.) The examiner must provide adequate rationale for all opinions provided. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Mohammad Mahmoudi, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.