Citation Nr: 21005232 Decision Date: 01/29/21 Archive Date: 01/29/21 DOCKET NO. 18-43 663 DATE: January 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service condition for a heart condition, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1967 to January 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a March 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a December 2018 decision, the Board denied the service connection claims. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim (Court). In an April 2019 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion), the parties requested that the Court vacate and remand the portion of the December 2018 Board decision that denied entitlement to service connection for a heart condition, prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus. In an April 2019 Order, the Court granted the Joint Motion. The Board remanded the claims in July 2019 and October 2019. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a) (2) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2020). 1. Entitlement to service condition for a heart condition, to include as due to herbicide exposure 2. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to herbicide exposure 3. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as due to herbicide exposure Regrettably, further evidentiary development is needed prior to adjudicating the claims. Additional efforts to corroborate the Veteran’s claimed herbicide agent exposure would be helpful to the Board. The Veteran asserts that he was exposed to herbicide agents while stationed at Fort Gordon for eleven weeks in 1967 while engaged in daily physical fitness training, combat readiness exercises in a remote, undeveloped area of Fort Gordon, and joint field operations in a simulated war zone in a remote area and undeveloped region, which lasted several days, during which he recalled a distinct peculiar “chemical” smell in the area of the group training. The Veteran’s attorney also asserted that, while stationed at Fort Gordon, the Veteran was present in those areas where the military used commercial herbicides in routine base maintenance activities, such as range management, brush clearing and weed killing, and that those commercial herbicides included herbicides listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (6). While the claims file contains a February 2016 VA formal finding that there was insufficient information to submit a request to the U.S. Army Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), the Board finds that additional details and information, when combined with previous information, now warrant further efforts to corroborate the Veteran’s alleged herbicide exposure at Fort Gordon. This is particularly important since a VA document entitled “Information from Department of Defense (DOD) on Herbicide Tests and Storage Outside of Vietnam” lists Fort Gordon as a location for herbicide testing from July 15, 1967 to July 17, 1967 (after the Veteran was stationed at Fort Gordon) but also notes the “Project Description” date range was December 1966 to October 1967 (during the period the Veteran was stationed at Fort Gordon); and a June 2020 VA memorandum indicating that DOD documents show that Agent Orange testing occurred at a remote forested location of three acres at Fort Gordon, Georgia during July 1967; testing was done in Training Area 47 over an area of approximately 98 acres; and herbicides were sprayed by helicopters. Additionally, while an August 2019 letter from Palmetto Health USC reported that the Veteran had been receiving private treatment for ischemic heart disease, the underlying private treatment records show diagnoses of ventricular arrhythmia and undiagnosed cardiac murmurs, with no mention of coronary artery disease or other ischemic heart disease. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), ischemic heart disease includes, but is not limited to, acute, subacute, and old myocardial infarction; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (including coronary spasm) and coronary bypass surgery; and stable, unstable and Prinzmetal's angina. On remand, if exposure to herbicide agents is ultimately established, an addendum opinion should be obtained regarding whether the evidence actually shows the Veteran suffers from a form of ischemic heart disease. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Attempt to verify through official sources the Veteran’s claimed exposure to herbicide agents at Fort Gordon from April 1967 to July 7, 1967. All responses should be placed in the claims file and the Veteran notified of unsuccessful attempts to verify the claimed herbicide agent exposure. If additional information is needed from the Veteran to permit verification, such should be requested. 2. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have recently treated him for his claimed disabilities. After securing any necessary releases, request any relevant records identified. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such. 3. If exposure to herbicide agents is ultimately established, obtain an examination and/or opinion as to whether the medical evidence actually reflects a heart disability that constitutes ischemic heart disease (noted in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) as including but not limited to acute, subacute, and old myocardial infarction; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (including coronary spasm) and coronary bypass surgery; and stable, unstable and Prinzmetal's angina). A rationale for the opinion should be provided. 4. If the claims remain denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. C. Birder 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.