Citation Nr: 20042348 Decision Date: 06/23/20 Archive Date: 06/23/20 DOCKET NO. 17-48 752 DATE: June 23, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s prostate cancer is related to his service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1966 to January 1969. These matters are before the Board on appeal from a March 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). These matters were before the Board in March 2019 and were remanded for further development. Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for a disability due to a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. To establish service connection there must be evidence of: (1) a present disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a causal relationship between the first two elements. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Factual Background In July 2014, the Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer. See urology treatment. The Veteran reported that his prostate cancer is due to exposure to herbicides used in the Republic of Vietnam. The Veteran stated while he was in the Navy, he was exposed to Agent Orange through items and military personnel who were stationed in Vietnam. See November 2016 correspondence. The Veteran also reported that after his discharge he began to have prostate related illnesses. In November 1969, the Veteran was treated for testicular pain. In January 1982, the Veteran was seen for recurrent episodes of burning with urination and pain in the umbilical area which radiated to the lower abdomen. The conducting private physician reported that the Veteran’s abdomen and genitalia were within normal limits and a rectal examination revealed a benign, soft feeling and nontender prostate gland. The physician diagnosed the Veteran with prostatitis and prescribed him antibiotics. The Veteran also provided a report from his private physician, Dr. William Findley, who treated him from 1978-2002 for continent prostatitis. In October 2019, a VA physician opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s prostate cancer was causally related to his service. As a rationale, the physician explained that the Veteran’s testicular pain and prostatitis are common reports seen in Primary Care and Urology and are not indicative of prostate cancer. He further explained that the Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer over 40 years after separation from service. The physician stated that the Veteran was diagnosed with a localized cancer which makes it unlikely that he had prostate cancer for over 30 years in which it remained localized to the prostate. Finally, the physician stated that prostatitis is caused by a bacterial infection and is unrelated to the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Analysis The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s prostate cancer is related to his service. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of prostate cancer and his post-service treatment records indicate that he began to experience prostatitis less than a year after he exited from service. The Veteran has also submitted medical evidence that he has been treated for recurring prostate issues which was diagnosed as continent prostatitis. However, the Board is persuaded by the October 2019 VA physician’s opinion that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s prostate cancer was caused by service. The Board assigns probative weight to this opinion because the physician reviewed the claims file and supported their opinion with a rationale. While the Veteran experienced recurrent prostatitis after exiting from service, the October 2019 VA physician explained that prostatitis is caused by bacterial infection and is unrelated to the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Additionally, the Veteran was not diagnosed with prostate cancer until July 2014 which was over forty years after exiting from service. While the Veteran may believe that his prostate cancer is related to his service and his recurrent prostatitis, he has not shown that he possesses the medical expertise to determine the cause of such a complex disability. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board also finds that the Veteran does not meet the criteria for receiving service connection on a presumptive basis due to Agent Orange exposure. Although prostate cancer is among the enumerated diseases listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), a Veteran will only be presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange if they had service in the Republic of Vietnam or near the Korean DMZ. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). The Veteran’s service records do not indicate that he served in Vietnam or near the Korean DMZ. Although the Veteran states he was exposed to Agent Orange by coming into contact with items and personnel who were stationed in Vietnam, there exist no legal provisions which concedes exposure to herbicides through indirect exposure or provides presumptive service connection for such alleged exposure. Accordingly, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is denied. BRANDON A. WILLIAMS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Alexander Bahus 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.