Citation Nr: 20053029 Decision Date: 08/10/20 Archive Date: 08/10/20 DOCKET NO. 20-00 892 DATE: August 10, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for multiple myeloma is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1954 to January 1958. He also had subsequent service in the California National Guard. This appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) is from an August 2008 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for multiple myeloma is remanded. The Veteran contends that he developed prostate cancer and multiple myeloma as a result of exposure to herbicide agents – specifically, the dioxin in Agent Orange, while in service. He is not shown by records in the file to have served in Vietnam.   In a February 2017 statement, the Veteran identified manners of his alleged exposure to Agent Orange. He related that, as a California Air National Guard Flight Engineer, he flew one flight each summer into Vietnam aboard C-130s with the 146th Tactical Airlift Wing as a member of the 195th Tactical Airlift Squadron. He reported setting foot in Vietnam (meaning on the landmass) on at least three occasions as a consequence. In March 2017 correspondence to the Veteran, the RO sought identifying information regarding his alleged exposure to herbicides. In October 2017, the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) Coordinator made a formal finding on a lack of information required to verify service in the Republic of Vietnam. It was noted that, in a March 2017 letter, the RO had requested details of his Agent Orange Exposure, but he did not respond to that request. However, the Board sees that, in April 2017, the Veteran submitted additional correspondence detailing his exposure to Agent Orange. Therefore, attempted verification of his alleged exposure to herbicides is still required. Furthermore, in a July 2020 statement, the Veteran’s attorney contended the RO had not properly assisted the Veteran in fully developing is claim. Specifically, the attorney indicated that the Veteran’s service personnel records (SPRs) note he served in the Special Operations Associations Airforce (SOAA) and, as such, the attorney requested that VA make an inquiry pursuant to VA Fast Letter 09-52 (which since has been incorporated into M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section I, 5(a)) to obtain verification of the Veteran’s service duties by accessing classified documents concerning his service. The Board recognizes it is not bound by the M21-1, but it is still free to consider its guidance. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.5 (stating that "[t]he Board is not bound by Department manuals, circulars, or similar administrative issues"). As such, the Board finds that the RO should route the Veteran's claims folder to the Military Records Specialist (MRS) for completion of a Special Operations Forces Incident document for alleged Special Operations, to be sent via encrypted e-mail to VAVBASPT/RO/SOCOM.   Accordingly, this claim is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Route the Veteran’s entire claims folder to the Military Records Specialist (MRS) to complete the “Special Operations Forces Incident” document shown in M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 1.I.5.c, and send it via encrypted e-mail to VAVBASPT/RO/SOCOM. This document should address all the Veteran’s alleged Special Operations during service, including as detailed in his July 2020 correspondence. This investigation must address his asserted Special Operations duties in Vietnam from 1965 to 1967. 2. After all available records have been obtained and associated with the claims file, make a formal finding as to the Veteran’s alleged exposure to herbicides in service. KEITH W. ALLEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Poindexter 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.