Citation Nr: 20049978 Decision Date: 07/28/20 Archive Date: 07/28/20 DOCKET NO. 20-05 448 DATE: July 28, 2020 REMANDED Service connection for prostate cancer as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation is remanded. Service connection for penile condition as secondary to prostate cancer is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from June 1965 to June 1968. The matter is on appeal before the Board from a January 2019 rating decision. Service Connection Prostate Cancer and Penile Condition In the Veteran’s VA Form 9 submitted in January 2020, he contends that he was exposed to ionizing radiation for three years as a Hercules missile crewman. He also noted that he launched the Nike Hercules missile in 1968. The Veteran’s service personnel records confirm his service as a Hercules missile crewman. In addition to his contention that his prostate cancer was caused by ionizing radiation, the Veteran submitted an article pertaining to contamination by chemicals of the site where he was stationed while working as a Hercules missile crewman. The Veteran’s VA treatment records indicate that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in April 2018. The Veteran has not been provided with a VA examination in relation to his prostate cancer. The Veteran asserts that he has a penile condition that is secondary to his prostate cancer. A notation form February 2012 provides that the Veteran has erectile dysfunction, however, no other penile conditions are found within the Veteran’s treatment records. The Veteran has not undergone a VA examination in relation to erectile dysfunction or any other penile conditions. Because exposure to ionizing radiation during service, VA regulations require certain development be conducted in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.311. This includes requesting a dose estimate, which does not appear to have been done. Additionally, a VA examination pertaining to the Veteran’s prostate cancer is warranted. As the Veteran’s asserted penile condition has been claimed as secondary to his prostate cancer, it is therefore intertwined and warrants a VA examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a dose estimate for the Veteran based on his service as a Hercules missile crewman while stationed in Porter, Indiana. 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(2)(iii). It is noted that the Veteran submitted an article in March 2020 pertaining to chemical contamination, but not radiological contamination, of the site in Porter, Indiana. 2. Following receipt of the requested radiation dose estimate, if radiation exposure is identified, then the claim should be forwarded to the VA Under Secretary for Benefits for consideration in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(c). 3. Conduct any other development necessary to determine the nature and extent of the Veteran’s exposure to chemicals, if any, during his time as a Hercules missile crewman in Porter Indiana. To the extent possible, chemicals should be identified. 4. If chemical or radiation exposure is found, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his prostate cancer. The examiner should address the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s prostate cancer began in or was otherwise caused by the Veteran’s active military service, including as a result of radiation exposure as a Hercules missile crewman and possible chemical exposure while stationed in Porter Indiana? Why or Why not? In so doing, the examiner should take into account the article submitted by the Veteran in March 2020 pertaining to chemical contamination at the site in Porter Indiana. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Lutgens-Staley, 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.