Citation Nr: 21068811 Decision Date: 11/13/21 Archive Date: 11/13/21 DOCKET NO. 14-31 260 DATE: November 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability, claimed as an enlarged prostate, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a prostate disability, claimed as an enlarged prostate, began during active service, or is otherwise related to any event, injury, or disease during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a prostate disability, claimed as an enlarged prostate, are not 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 November 1966 to October 1968. This mater comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. In June 2017 the Veteran participated in a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A hearing transcript is of record. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability, claimed as an enlarged prostate The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a prostate disability because the claimed disability is the result of active service. More specifically, the Veteran asserts that the enlarged prostate was the result of herbicide agent exposure or was secondary to gastrointestinal issues. The Veteran asserts that following the removal of adenocarcinoma from the colon polyps, the residuals were an enlarged prostate diagnosis in the 1980s. The pathology reports indicate diverticular disease following the removal. The Veteran has stated that he still has an enlarged prostate as a result of that procedure. Herbicide agent exposure has previously been acknowledged by VA. Service connection may be established 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. To establish 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). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to any event, injury, or disease during service. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of benign hypertrophy of prostate (BPH), the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that BPH began during service or is otherwise related to any event, injury, or disease during service. A January 2006 medical note from Charlotte Surgical Group indicated that during a colonoscopy in 1977, a polyp was discovered and revealed adenocarcinoma arising in the head of the polyp. In a September 1977 supplemental report by T.E.H., M.D., it was indicated that the carcinoma which was present in the head of the polyp appeared to be completely excised. The final impression was an adenocarcinoma arising in the head of adenomatous polyp of colon with microinvasion of stalk but no penetration of the pedicle. In July 2021, a VA medical examiner opined that the claimed disability was not related to active service. The rational provided was that BPH is not a cancer. The examiner further noted that BPH is not related to gastrointestinal problems. The malignant polyp occurred many decades ago and was resected, and did not metastasize. The examiner lastly opined that it is not related to any prostate pathology. The examiner stated that BPH is a benign prostate condition, likely due to changes in the balance of sex hormones as men grow older, not related to exposure to any agents, or chemicals. In August 2021, the same examiner opined that because the main cause of BPH is aging and hormonal unbalances, herbicide agent exposure has not been related to BPH in any case. The examiner indicated that herbicide agent exposure has been related to prostate cancer, but BPH is not a prostate cancer nor a precursor of prostate cancer. The examiner stated that BPH is not related to colon adenocarcinoma. They are two different separate diagnoses and not related. The examiner acknowledged the Veteran 's lay statements and those of his peers. The examiner also acknowledged that the age of adenocarcinoma within the head of the polyp in the sigmoid colon was 33. However, it was emphasized that the PSA was normal until at least 2002, when the patient was 58 years old. The Veteran believes his prostate disability is related to an event, injury, or disease during service. The Veteran in this case is not competent to provide an etiology opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of pathology and interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to provide such an opinion. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the medical evidence of record because of the training of the examiner and review of the records. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that any prostate disability is related to service, or any event, injury, or disease during service, to specifically include exposure to herbicide agents. Therefore, service connection for a prostate disability is denied. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Cross, 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.