Citation Nr: 20052964 Decision Date: 08/10/20 Archive Date: 08/10/20 DOCKET NO. 12-03 038 DATE: August 10, 2020 ORDER Service connection for prostate cancer is denied. Service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran was not exposed to herbicide agents during temporary duty in Puerto Rico from September 1966 to December 1966. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Marine Corps from January 1966 to January 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2009 rating decision. The Board denied the claims in September 2016. The Veteran appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) filed by the parties, the Court remanded the matter back to the Board in October 2017. The Board then remanded for additional development in November 2017. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran is seeking service connection for prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus due to herbicide agent exposure. Both disabilities are presumed to be associated with such exposure under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). He has not alleged, nor does the evidence otherwise suggest, that these conditions had their onset during service. Therefore, the pertinent question is whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents. As outlined in the JMR and prior remand, he contends that he was exposed to herbicide agents during a temporary duty assignment to Puerto Rico from September 1966 to December 1966. He stated that he arrived at the Roosevelt Road Naval Station in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and then delivered food to Camp Garcia on the Isle of Vieques. His service personnel records corroborate his account. As outlined in a November 2019 VA memorandum associated with the file, Department of Defense (DoD) documentation shows that herbicide agent testing was conducted in the following locations in Puerto Rico: Cabo Rojo (including the city of Joyuda), Guanica (including Guanica Forest and Guanica Beach), Jayuya (including the Toro Negro Forest Preserve), Las Marias, Maricao, Mayaguez (including the cities of Las Mesas and La Jagua), Rio Grande (including the cities of El Verde and Jimenez), and San Sebastian (including Guajataca State Forest). Notably, as of the date of this decision, VA’s website does not list Puerto Rico among the locations where herbicide agents were used, tested, or stored. However, for the purpose of this appeal, the Board will accept the above memorandum as part of the record. The Veteran has not alleged, and his personnel records do not otherwise show, that he traveled to any of the above-listed locations. As he clarified in an April 2018 statement, his duties involved travel between the isle of Vieques and San Juan. The memorandum goes on to state that VA does not have documentation or other evidence of the use, testing or storage of tactical herbicides in any municipality not named, including the adjoining island of Vieques. Therefore, the undisputed evidence does not establish that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents in Puerto Rico, and service connection is not established. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Shamil Patel, 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.