Citation Nr: 21063135 Decision Date: 10/13/21 Archive Date: 10/13/21 DOCKET NO. 19-30 389 DATE: October 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for peritoneal mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's peritoneal mesothelioma is related to in-service asbestos exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for peritoneal mesothelioma are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1991 to March 1991, from October 1993 to July 1995, and served on a period of active duty training (ADT) from April 1988 to September 1988. He provided testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during an October 2021 hearing. Entitlement to service connection for peritoneal mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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). Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Active military, naval, or air service includes any period of active duty for training (ADT) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty, or any period of inactive duty training (IADT) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (21) and (24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (a) and (d). ADT includes full-time duty performed for training purposes by members of the Reserves and National Guard of any state. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (22); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (c)(1) and (3). Thus, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated while performing ADT, or from an injury incurred or aggravated while performing IADT. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (24), 106, 1110. The Veteran contends that he was exposed to asbestos during basic training in 1988 when he was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia. He reported that he was assigned to tear asbestos shingles off of old barracks. He also reported exposure to asbestos from changing brake pads on jeeps and trucks during the course of his military service. The Board finds that the Veteran is competent to report asbestos exposures that he knew of in service. Additionally, the Board finds that his statements are credible and are supported by a November 2018 statement from D.S., the Deputy Post Chaplain and Chaplain for Mobilization stationed at Fort Benning at that time. D.S. knew the Veteran and reported that during the Veteran's training, he and other trainees worked to tear down old outdated and asbestos-filled barracks at Harmony Church Hill in Fort Benning. Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran has asbestos exposure in service. The Board finds that the Veteran has a current disability that is related to asbestos exposure in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). VA and private treatment records show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of peritoneal mesothelioma. Two medical opinions of record relate the Veteran's peritoneal mesothelioma to his in-service asbestos exposure. An August 2016 opinion from Dr. B.L., the Veteran's primary care physician and internal medicine specialist noted the Veteran's in-service asbestos exposure. He explained that malignant peritoneal mesothelioma is a very rare type of cancer that is in the thin membrane that surrounds the abdominal cavity, and the only cause for peritoneal mesothelioma is asbestos exposure, whether it be through inhalation of asbestos fibers or ingestion of asbestos fibers. He opined, therefore, that the Veteran's peritoneal mesothelioma was directly related to his exposure to asbestos in service. An August 2016 opinion from Dr. E.C., the surgical oncologist who was treating the Veteran, also opined that peritoneal mesothelioma was related to his asbestos exposure in service. She reported that his percutaneous biopsy was consistent with epithelioid peritoneal mesothelioma, which had been linked to asbestos exposure. She opined that his peritoneal mesothelioma may, therefore, be linked to his asbestos exposure in service. The Board finds that the two August 2016 medical opinions are probative and are based on an accurate medical history, and Dr. E.C.'s opinion lends further weight to Dr. B.L.'s opinion which relates the Veteran's malignant peritoneal mesothelioma directly to his in-service asbestos exposure. The Board finds the weight of the evidence shows that peritoneal mesothelioma is related to in-service asbestos exposure. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for peritoneal mesothelioma is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Christine C. Kung 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.