Citation Nr: 21064724 Decision Date: 10/21/21 Archive Date: 10/21/21 DOCKET NO. 18-15 255 DATE: October 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a prostate condition, to include an enlarged prostate, including as a result of exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from October 1967 to August 1969. The Veteran's VA Form DD-214 reflects he is in receipt of a National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with two Bronze Stars, and Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 device. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2020, the Veteran presented testimony at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is on record. In December 2020, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim for a prostate condition for additional development, to include obtaining the Veteran's service records and an examination on the etiology of his claimed condition. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate condition, to include an enlarged prostate, including as a result of exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. The Board regrets further delay, but finds a remand is again necessary before deciding this claim. Per the Board's December 2020 remand, the RO was to obtain service records and a VA examination on the etiology of his claimed prostate condition. Service records were obtained, and a VA examination was provided in August 2021. The August 2021 examiner opined the Veteran's enlarged prostate condition is less likely than not related to service, noting, "[n]o, there is no medical evidence within service record that the patient's current diagnosis of benign prostatic hypertrophy is related to any prior exposure to chemical agents. No medical evidence to substantiate exposure to chemical agents causing benign prostatic hypertrophy." With this explanation, the Board cannot discern whether the examiner's negative rationale is based on limited knowledge of the examiner or limited medical evidence generally. Moreover, it is not clear whether the examiner concluded the Veteran was not exposed to chemical agents at all or simply chemical agents are not associated with the development of the Veteran's current prostate condition. To this end, the Board notes the Veteran's VA Form DD-214 confirms he is in receipt of Vietnam service medals that demonstrate he was stationed in Vietnam and presumptively exposed to herbicide agents. Accordingly, the Veteran's claim for service connection for benign prostatic hypertrophy is remanded for a clarifying VA addendum opinion on the condition's etiology. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain a VA addendum opinion on the etiology of the Veteran's benign prostate hypertrophy. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner and the examiner should note a review of such in the examination report. The need for an in-person examination is left to the examiner's discretion. After a thorough review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's currently diagnosed prostate condition, to include benign prostatic hypertrophy, was incurred in or is otherwise etiologically related to his military service, to include his presumptive exposure to herbicide agents in Vietnam. *As requested by the December 2020 Board remand instructions, the examiner is asked to address the Veteran's prostate symptom history as described by the Veteran at his October 2020 Board hearing when rendering his or her final opinion. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions rendered. 2. Then, readjudicate the claim. L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board P.A. Infante, 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.