Citation Nr: 21076864 Decision Date: 12/28/21 Archive Date: 12/28/21 DOCKET NO. 19-02 851A DATE: December 28, 2021 REMANDED The issue of service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty in the United States Army from March 1971 to December 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran submitted a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) in May 2018 and a Statement of the Case (SOC) was issued in February 2019. The Veteran perfected an appeal by submitting a timely VA Form 9 in February 2019. The Veteran states that his first name is misspelled in the file. His name, however, was spelled the same way it appears on the majority of his personnel documents from active duty and his marriage certificate associated with his file. The Veteran had also signed his name the way it appears in the file in March 1971. The issue of service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents The Veteran contends that he was exposed to designated herbicide agents and hazardous chemicals while loading ships at Cape Kennedy Outport during active service from July 1971 to December 1972 and that his prostate cancer was caused by exposure to herbicide agents. The Veteran credibly testified in August 2021 that he loaded barrels onto military and commercial ships and that he was "soaked" with liquid that was inside the barrels with contact on the skin or by inhalation of vapors. His service records show that his specialty was "57H20 Cargo Handler." Service treatment records including a November 1972 are silent for any symptoms diagnoses or treatment for acute skin or respiratory disorders. However, there is no evidence of record that directly contradicts the Veteran's testimony. The Veteran was diagnosed as having prostate cancer in May 2001. The military personnel files show that the Veteran was stationed at Cape Kennedy Outport but do not show whether he did or did not load barrels containing the designated herbicide agents or hazardous chemicals or whether the designated herbicide agents where in general shipped through this port to Vietnam. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) did not conduct any research to either verify or deny the Veteran's contentions. Where the record before the Board is inadequate to render a fully informed decision, a remand to the AOJ is required in order to fulfill its statutory duty to assist the Veteran to develop the facts pertinent to the claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c)(1)(C). Here, lacking information from the Department of the Army regarding the cargo manifest or destinations of the ships loaded at Cape Kenney Outport during the Veteran's active service, the Board cannot render a fully informed decision. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate the information from the appropriate Department of the Army agency with the Veteran's file to determine whether the designated herbicide agents or hazardous liquid cargo was shipped through this port on military transport or commercial vessels between July 1971 and December 1977. Examples of relevant information may include: (1) list of ships that were loaded and/or unloaded at Cape Kennedy Outport between July 1971 to December 1972; (2) the above ships' cargo manifest; (3) the above ships' destinations; and (4) any other information pertinent to the Veteran's contention of loading barrels with herbicide agents during active duty and getting soaked by herbicide agents or hazardous chemicals. Any attempts to develop the Veteran's file must be documented and associated with the Veteran's file. 2. If exposure to chemicals other than the designated herbicide agents is shown, the RO should consider whether a medical opinion on the cause of prostate cancer is warranted. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board H.S. Yun, 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.