Citation Nr: A21017643 Decision Date: 11/01/21 Archive Date: 11/01/21 DOCKET NO. 210628-168776 DATE: November 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tremors due to hazardous occupational exposures, including radiation, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence reflects that the Veteran's essential tremors are due to service or incidents therein. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Veteran's essential tremors were incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from July 1956 to November 1959. This matter is on appeal from a February 2021rating decision and is therefore governed by the framework of the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). 38 C.F.R. § 19.2. The Veteran timely appealed this AMA rating decision, with the submission of a June 2021 Form 10182 to the Board and requested Evidence Submission Reviewed by a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), with the option of providing additional evidence within 90 days thereof. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. Entitlement to service connection for tremors due to hazardous occupational exposures, including radiation, is granted. The Veteran contends that his diagnosed essential tremors are related to service. Specifically, he avers that as a munition specialist, he was exposed to radiation and chemicals from his working with the A-Bomb and B-4s. Further, he also had exposure in Greenland, cleaning up ammo dump and in Columbus, Ohio. The Veteran's DD-214 confirms his military occupational specialty (MOS) as a munition specialist/explosive operator and his spending one year of foreign and/or sea service. His service treatment records (STRs) note that he was stationed at Lockbourne Air Force Base and RAF Station, Lakenheath, England. In February 2021, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination to determine the etiology of his essential tremors. The examiner proffered a negative nexus to service. The examiner, a specialist in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, explained that [t]he first documentation of his tremors was on 8/27/12, almost 53 years after he left the service. If he had significant exposure to radiation or neurotoxins, he would have had earlier and a wider range of neurological symptoms other than just a tremor. There is no documentation of other neurological symptoms. It is not clear what hazardous materials the [V]eteran was exposed to. In support of his claim, the Veteran provided an April 2021 dated letter from Dr. D. R., Neurologist, and Director of Parkinson's Disease Consortium, West Haven VA Medical Center. Dr. D. R. indicated that she had been involved with the Veteran's care since March 2020 for treatment of persistent tremors. To provide the said letter, she indicated a review of the available electronic chart and conducted an interview with the Veteran. Dr. D. R. opined that the Veteran's "account of his medical condition w[as] found to be accurate to the medical documentation. Further, she noted that "based on some of the literature review on this topic, this [Veteran's tremors] is as least likely as not... related to exposure to ionizing radiation during his military service. In his working as a munitions specialist, exposures were likely more measured as compared to the exposure of the actual bombs at detonation." As there are conflicting medical opinions, the Board affords greater weight to the opinion provided by Dr. D. R., a neurologist, and the Veteran's treating VA clinician. A physician's review of the claims file is not the determinative factor in assigning probative value. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 300 (2008). A physician should have information regarding relevant case facts. Accordingly, as the preponderance of the probative evidence of record weighs in favor of the claim of service connection for essential tremors. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012). Thus, service connection for essential tremors is, therefore, granted. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Stevens, 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.