Citation Nr: 21005828 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 16-02 617 DATE: February 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, claimed as due to herbicide agent exposure is denied. Entitlement to service connection for prolactinoma, claimed as due to herbicide agent exposure or nuclear radiation exposure, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left groin strain is denied. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a ruptured quadriceps tendon injury of the right leg is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that diabetes mellitus began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that prolactinoma began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 3. The Veteran’s left groin strain is not secondary to a service-connected disability and is not otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 4. The Veteran’s residuals of a ruptured quadriceps tendon injury of the right leg is not secondary to a service-connected disability and is not otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for prolactinoma are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3. The criteria for service connection for a left groin strain, due to service or a service-connected disability are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. 4. The criteria for service connection for prolactinoma, due to service or a service-connected disability are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1967 to May 1967, and November 1967 to December 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Boston, Massachusetts. In April 2020, the Veteran participated in a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A hearing transcript is of record. Service Connection 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, the evidence must show: (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 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis if the evidence show that the claimed disability is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disability; or, the claimed disability increased in severity beyond that natural progression proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disability.  38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a), (b).  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 injury, event, or disease during service, or is caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, claimed as due to herbicide agent exposure The Veteran asserts that he was exposed to herbicide agents in January 1968 and nuclear radioactivity while working with the Polaris Missile Warheads at Anderson Air Force Base. He contends that he rented a house on Nimitz Hill which was in proximity of the storage of Agent Orange. The service medical records are negative for any treatment, complaints, or hospitalization for diabetes mellitus. Private medical records show ongoing treatment for diabetes since May 2003. The Veteran appears to have United States Merchant Marine service. Military personnel records show possible travel to Vietnam during that period of service. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.7, active military service for individuals in the American Merchant Marine includes only oceangoing service during periods of armed conflict from December 7, 1941, to August 15, 1945. 38 C.F.R. § 3.7(x)(14), (15). Specifically, United States Merchant Seamen who served on blockade ships in support of Operation Mulberry during World War II and American Merchant Marines who were in Oceangoing Service during the period of armed conflict from December 7, 1941, through August 15, 1945, are considered to have had active service. In this case, the Veteran was a Merchant Marine beginning in 1963 which is not during a time period where in Merchant Marine service has been determined to be active duty for the purposes of all laws administered by VA. Thus, service connection cannot be established based on service in the Merchant Marines. The service personnel records do not show that the Veteran was present in the Republic of Vietnam or in the territorial waters of the Republic of Vietnam during active duty service with the Navy. At an April 2020 hearing before the Board, the Veteran testified that commercial pesticides and herbicides were sprayed around the base perimeter in Guam. In September 2020 the Veteran was asked to provide additional information regarding the alleged exposure. No response was received. The service personnel records do not show any notation of the use of commercial pesticides and herbicides. All relevant, identified, and available evidence has been obtained, and VA has notified the Veteran of any evidence that could not be obtained. The duty to assist is not a one-way street. If the Veteran wants to receive help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the relevant evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Furthermore, it is the responsibility of Veteran to cooperate with VA. Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480 (1992). That means the Veteran must help VA in locating and obtaining relevant treatment records or other documents that may support the claim. VA must provide the Veteran with an examination where the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but (1) contains competent evidence of diagnosed disability or symptoms of disability, (2) establishes an in-service event, injury or disease, or the presence of a presumptive disease during the pertinent period, and (3) indicates that the claimed disability may be associated with the in-service event, injury, or disease, or with another service-connected disability. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). A medical treatment record noted a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, type II. The Veteran has not submitted any further argument in support of the claim. There is no indication that the Veteran was diagnosed within one year of separation from service. The service medical records do not note any type of exposure that would warrant presumptive service connection, or complaints for symptoms related to diabetes mellitus, type II. The evidence of record does not establish an in-service event or disease or indicates that the claimed disability may be related to service. The Veteran has not submitted any medical evidence relating any current diabetes mellitus, type II disease to service. Therefore, a VA examination is not warranted. The Board finds that the evidence of record does not show that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service. The preponderance of the evidence is also against a finding that any current diabetes mellitus was incurred in service, manifested to a compensable degree within one year following separation from service, or is the result of any herbicide agent exposure during service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. 2. Entitlement to service connection for prolactinoma, claimed as due to herbicide agent exposure or nuclear radiation exposure The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for prolactinoma because the claimed disability is the result of active service. More specifically, the Veteran contends that prolactinoma is associated with exposure to nuclear radioactivity and working with Polaris Missile Warheads while stationed at Anderson Air Force Base. As previously noted, claimed exposure to herbicide agents has not been corroborated by the evidence of record. In addition, the evidence does not show that the Veteran was exposed to ionizing radiation during service. In a February 2008 statement, the Veteran stated that he was diagnosed with a tumor in 1980. Medical treatment records show treatment for prolactinoma beginning in November 2005. There is an indication of a 1980 diagnosis, but it is unclear if that was based on reports by the Veteran because no medical evidence was provided in support of that date. The service medical records are negative for any treatment, complaints, or hospitalization for prolactinoma. The Veteran reported treatment for prolactinoma, but did not provide the completed release forms in order for the information to be obtained. All relevant, identified, and available evidence has been obtained, and VA has notified the Veteran of any evidence that could not be obtained. The duty to assist is not a one-way street. If the Veteran wants to receive help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the relevant evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Furthermore, it is the responsibility of Veteran to cooperate with VA. Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480 (1992). That means the Veteran must help VA in locating and obtaining relevant treatment records or other documents that may support the claim. VA must provide the Veteran with an examination where the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but (1) contains competent evidence of diagnosed disability or symptoms of disability, (2) establishes an in-service event, injury or disease, or the presence of a presumptive disease during the pertinent period, and (3) indicates that the claimed disability may be associated with the in-service event, injury, or disease, or with another service-connected disability. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). A medical treatment record noted a diagnosis of prolactinoma. The Veteran has not submitted any further argument in support of the claim. There is no indication that the Veteran was diagnosed within one year of separation from service. The service medical records do not note any type of exposure that would warrant presumptive service connection, or complaints for symptoms related to prolactinoma. The evidence of record does not establish an in-service event or disease or indicate that the claimed disability may be related to service. The Veteran has not submitted any medical evidence relating any current prolactinoma disease to service. The evidence also does not establish that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents or ionizing radiation during service. Therefore, a VA examination is not warranted. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the claim for service connection for prolactinoma, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left groin strain, claimed as due to diabetes mellitus The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a left groin strain because the claimed disability is the result of his diabetes mellitus which he asserts is related to active service. At the April 2020 hearing, the Veteran testified that the left groin happened as a result of a “fall back in July.” The Veteran asserted that he fell as a result of diabetes mellitus. The Board notes that the Veteran has not established service connection for diabetes. Because the Veteran has not raised, and the record does not reasonably raise, entitlement to direct service connection, the Board’s adjudication will consider only entitlement to secondary service connection. The Board notes that the Veteran has stated the injury was incurred in approximately July 2019 and has made no contention relating any left groin disability to service; any event, injury, or disease during service; or to any disability for which service-connection has been established. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a left groin strain, the Veteran is not service-connected for a diabetes disability. Service connection on a secondary basis cannot be established where the claimed primary disability is not service-connected. The evidence does not otherwise show that any left groin disability is related to service or any service-connected disability. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a left groin disability and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. 4. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a ruptured quadriceps tendon injury of the right leg, claimed as due to diabetes mellitus The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for residuals of a ruptured quadriceps tendon injury of the right leg because the claimed disability is the result of a diabetes mellitus which he asserts is related to active service. At the April 2020 hearing, the Veteran testified that diabetes mellitus causes him to fall often, which led to him injuring the right leg. The Veteran has not established service connection for diabetes. Because the Veteran has not raised, and the record does not reasonably raise, entitlement to direct service connection, the Board’s adjudication will consider only entitlement to secondary service connection. The Veteran has made no contentions relating any right leg disability to service or any event, injury, or disease during service. The evidence of record does not otherwise show any event, injury, or disease during service involving a right quadriceps tendon injury. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has residuals of a ruptured quadriceps tendon injury of the right leg, the Veteran is not service-connected for a diabetes disability. Service connection on a secondary basis cannot be established where the claimed primary disability is not service connected. The Board finds that the preponderance of competent evidence is against a finding that any right quadriceps disability is related to service; any event, injury, or disease during service; or was caused or aggravated by any service-connected disability. (Continued on the next page)   Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a right quadriceps tendon disability and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. 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.