Citation Nr: 20060706 Decision Date: 09/15/20 Archive Date: 09/15/20 DOCKET NO. 14-34 303 DATE: September 15, 2020 ORDER Service connection for prostate cancer is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from September 1965 to September 1995, including service along the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in Korea. 2. Prostate cancer was not shown in service, was not shown to a compensable degree within one year of service, and symptoms were not continuous since service; prostate cancer is not causally or etiologically related to service, to include as due to herbicide exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW Prostate cancer was not incurred in service and is not presumed to have been incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 under the following circumstances: (1) where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury are shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause; or (2) where there is continuity of symptomatology since service; or (3) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for certain diseases resulting from exposure to an herbicide agent (including Agent Orange) for veterans who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam between January 1962 and May 1975. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). While the enumerated diseases which are associated with herbicide exposure includes prostate cancer, the Veteran did not serve in Vietnam. In addition, veteran who served in units that, as determined by the Department of Defense (DoD), operated in or near the Korean DMZ between April 1, 1968, and August 31, 1971, are considered to have been exposed to herbicides. Finally, the availability of presumptive service connection for a disability based on exposure to herbicides does not preclude a veteran from establishing service connection with proof of direct causation, or on any other recognized basis. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Turning to direct service connection, the Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer in February 2011. Thus, a current disability has been shown and the first element of service connection has been met. As to in-service incurrence, the service treatment records (STRs) are silent for reports of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of prostate cancer. Further, there were no tests undertaken for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) during service. As such, the medical evidence does not support direct service connection as there was no in-service incurrence of prostate cancer. Next, prostate cancer is a chronic disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 and presumptive service connection will be addressed; however, prostate cancer was not shown in service or within one year after service and symptoms were not continuous since service. Specifically, prostate cancer was not diagnosed until 2011, more than 15 years after separation from service. As such, prostate cancer was not shown in service and did not manifest to a compensable degree within the one-year presumptive period. Further, continuity of symptomatology has not been established. Blood tests performed after the Veteran’s active service did not show elevated PSA levels until 2002 and prostate cancer was not actually diagnosed until 2011. As such, symptoms of prostate cancer were not continuous since service and the medical evidence does not support service connection on a presumptive basis. Next, the Veteran’s main contention is that prostate cancer is due to herbicide exposure during service near the Korean DMZ. He asserts that he was directly involved in herbicide spraying and that there was herbicide residue in the surrounding landscape. However, the record reflects that the Veteran had service along the Korean DMZ from February 1966 to February 1968, August 1973 to September 1974, and June 1992 to June 1993. As this is outside the required period for herbicide exposure, prostate cancer is not presumed to have been incurred as a result of herbicide exposure. Further, the Center for Unit Records Research (CURR) stated in an August 2014 response that the Veteran’s unit history did not document the use, storage, spraying, or transportation of herbicides. Additionally, his military personnel record does not reflect any duties that were related to the spraying of herbicides. Aside from the lay statements provided by the Veteran, there is no evidence to corroborate the claim. As such, exposure to herbicides is not conceded and service connection may not be presumed as due to herbicide exposure. Next, service connection as due to herbicide exposure is not warranted on a direct causation basis under Combee. While the Veteran has asserted that he should receive a VA medical examination to assert a nexus between prostate cancer and exposure to herbicides, the evidence does not show that he was exposed to herbicides during service. Without credible evidence establishing exposure to herbicides, service connection may not be granted on this basis and a medical examination is not necessary. As such, the evidence does not support service connection as due to herbicide exposure on a direct causation basis. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements that his disorder was caused by service. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. However, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of his current disorder due to the medical complexity of the matter involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records and clinical evidence obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the objective medical evidence and service records than to his statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not   required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Kokolas, 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.