Citation Nr: 21010642 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 18-34 138 DATE: February 25, 2021 ORDER Service connection for prostate cancer is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s prostate cancer is related to his herbicide agent exposure in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110,1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from February 1969 to January 1973. The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in December 2020. Service connection for prostate cancer The Veteran asserts that he was exposed to herbicide agent, commonly known as Agent Orange, when he was serving at Udorn, Royal Thai Air Force base (RTAFB). He stated that at Udorn RTAFB, he was tasked with duties such as performing pre-flight, basic post-flight and phase inspections on assigned C-130 aircraft, including repairs, troubleshooting, modifying components and assisting the crew chief with unscheduled maintenances of the aircraft as a member of the crash recovery and reclamation team. The Veteran further asserts that he worked at the perimeter of the base and worked on aircraft at both ends of the runway, which were located near the perimeter. See November 2017 Brief in Support of DRO Review; see also November 2017 DRO Hearing Transcript. The Veteran contends that his prostate cancer should be presumptively service-connected due to that exposure. Service connection generally will be awarded when a veteran has a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). To establish service connection on a direct basis, the evidence must show: (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a link between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In certain cases, competent lay evidence may demonstrate the presence of any of these elements. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The nexus element may also be fulfilled by (1) a nexus opinion or (2) competent and credible evidence showing that the veteran has experienced frequent and persistent symptoms of the disease since service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (a), (d); see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence on any issue material to the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990) (when the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, the claim will be granted). Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent, known as Agent Orange (AO), unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). The United States DOD has also confirmed that Agent Orange was used from April 1968 through July 1969 along the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in Korea. The term “herbicide agent” means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations during the period beginning on January 9, 1962 and ending on May 7, 1975, specifically: 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD; cacodylic acid; and picloram. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). Here, based on a review of the service personnel records and other evidence of record, the Board finds that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides while in service. If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service, the following diseases shall be service-connected if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6) are met, even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied: Chloracne or other acne form disease consistent with chloracne; Type 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes); Hodgkin’s disease; chronic lymphocytic leukemia; B cell leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, multiple myeloma; non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; early-onset peripheral neuropathy; porphyria cutanea tarda; prostate cancer; respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx or trachea); soft-tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi’s sarcoma, or mesothelioma); and ischemic heart disease, (including, but not limited to, acute, subacute, and old myocardial infarction; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (including coronary spasm) and coronary bypass surgery; and stable, unstable and Prinzmetal’s angina), shall be service-connected if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6) are met, even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, except that chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). The Veteran’s service personnel records show that he served as an Aircraft Mechanic at Udorn RTAFB from 1970 to 1971. See May 2018 DPRIS Response. As noted above, he stated that he was assigned to perimeter guard duty upon his arrival at Udorn RTAFB and was on the flight line and while completing apparatus delivering throughout the entire base. See November 2017 Statement in Support of Claim. In a buddy statement provide in support of Veteran’s claim, a fellow service member who worked alongside the Veteran at Udorn RTAFB stated that their duties put them on and near the base perimeter on a daily basis, exposing them to herbicides and other elements of the tropical climate. See May 2020 Buddy Statement. At his December 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran also testified that a basketball court and football field were located on the base perimeter where Veteran would visit about once a week; he also had to line up at the perimeter to get back into the base via security checkpoint. See December 2020 Board Hearing Transcript. Here, the Board finds that the Veteran has provided consistent, credible, and probative lay evidence. The Veteran presented lay statements describing his in-service duties, which the Board finds credible. Moreover, his military personnel records show that he was assigned to Udorn RTAFB as an aircraft mechanic. Thus, based on the foregoing, the Board finds that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange during service. Because the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service, the Board presumes his diagnosed prostate cancer is associated with that exposure, as there is no evidence to the contrary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Therefore, the criteria for service connection on a presumptive basis are satisfied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Accordingly, service connection for prostate cancer due to herbicide agent exposure is warranted. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Zarar Ahmed, Attorney Advisor 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.