Citation Nr: 20041201 Decision Date: 06/17/20 Archive Date: 06/17/20 DOCKET NO. 17-20 258 DATE: June 17, 2020 ORDER Service connection for prostate cancer due to exposure to herbicides is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in Guam. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer as due to herbicide exposure are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably from May 1963 to September 1967. This case has been advanced on the docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an October 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. In December 2018, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim for additional development. The appeal is now back at the Board, and the Board will proceed to decide the claim. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Id. Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for certain diseases, including prostate cancer, which are associated with exposure to tactical herbicide agents commonly referred to as Agent Orange (AO). 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). The Veteran has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. In service, the Veteran was an aircraft mechanic in the 7th Field Maintenance Squadron. Between April 1965 and October 1965, the squadron was detailed to Anderson AFB Guam along with B-52 bombers from the 7th Bombardment Wing. The Veteran believes that he was exposed to AO while working in Guam. He is entitled to service connection for his prostate cancer unless the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Veteran was not exposed to AO in Guam. When the Veteran filed his claim in March 2014, he wrote that, while in Guam, his duties included working on the C-130 aircraft that sprayed AO in Vietnam. He wrote that, because he was both an aircraft mechanic and a pneumatic repairman, his work on the C-130s included breaking lines which resulted in him being sprayed with numerous chemicals including AO. He wrote that he also feels that the residue left on the planes affected his health. Later, the Veteran clarified that the lines he referred to were hydraulic lines including those for brakes and pumps. He also clarified that, while he was in Guam to work on the B-52s, he was sometimes loaned out to other shops to work on C-130s. In his Form 9 in March 2017, the Veteran wrote that, in service, he worked on all types of planes, including C-123s, and it may be that the planes he worked on in Guam were C-123s, not C-130s. He also stated that, because he worked near the flight line, he was near planes he did not work on. Pursuant to the remand instructions, the Veteran’s Service Representative (VSR) made additional efforts to find evidence that the Veteran was exposed in Guam to AO. The record contains the VSR’s report of information supplied by the Department of Defense. The VSR reported that (1) DOD has not identified any location on Guam where AO was used, tested, stored or transported; (2) Guam was not on the AO shipping supply line which went directly from Alabama or Mississippi to South Vietnam via ship; and (3) C-123s, not C-130s, were used to spray AO in Vietnam during Operation Ranch Hand. When an employee from the Air Force Historical Research Agency was advised that the Veteran said he was exposed to AO while working on C-130s in Guam, the employee responded that C-130s did not transport AO and the host unit, not the 7th, would have worked on transient aircraft such as C-130s which were not stationed at Anderson AFB. The Board would first note that it finds credible the Veteran’s statement that, in Guam, he sometimes worked on C-130s. On the other hand, the Veteran has not explained how he knows that any of the chemicals which spilled on him from lines were tactical herbicides like AO. Also, the Veteran has stated that an environmental study found significant amounts of AO in the soil near Anderson AFB. The Board can attribute no weight to his report because the Veteran has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his statement or even explained the source of his information. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran was exposed in Guam to AO. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran ever worked on C-123s or worked on C-130s which had been used to transport AO. Also, the record is devoid of evidence that a serviceman can be exposed to AO for purposes of longterm health effects simply by working on or near aircraft which had been previously used in Vietnam. (Continued on the next page) Because the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran was exposed in service to herbicides, service connection for prostate cancer is denied. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Pamela F. Mucklow 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.