Citation Nr: 21012789 Decision Date: 03/05/21 Archive Date: 03/05/21 DOCKET NO. 17-28 667 DATE: March 5, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as a result of in-service herbicide agent exposure, is granted. Service connection for bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as a result of in-service herbicide agent exposure, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is etiologically related to his in-service exposure to herbicide agents. 2. Resolving doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is etiologically related to his in-service exposure to herbicide agents. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as a result of in-service herbicide agent exposure, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as a result of in-service herbicide agent exposure, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from March 1968 to January 1970, with service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision. In October 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the Veteran’s claims file. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, the law establishes a presumption of entitlement to service connection for certain chronic diseases associated with exposure to herbicide agents. Specifically, the law provides a presumption of exposure to such agents for veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam between January 1962 and May 1975, absent affirmative evidence to the contrary demonstrating that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). In these circumstances, service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for the diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), which includes peripheral neuropathy, if manifested to a compensable degree within one year after active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). If a chronic disease is not manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation of service, then, generally, a showing of “continuity of symptoms” after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Furthermore, a layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his or her current symptomatology. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran’s service personnel records reflect that the Veteran served in Vietnam during the requisite timeframe and was awarded the Purple Heart. As such, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents during active duty, and the presumptions outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) are applicable. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iv). Further, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran has a current, undisputed diagnosis of bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower extremities. Thus, the only question before the Board is whether the Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy manifested to a compensable degree within one year after his active duty—or is otherwise related to such service. In June 2015 the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. He reported that his symptoms began with a sudden onset of numbness and tingling in his hands and feet and that the symptoms have continuously gotten worse throughout the years. The examination showed mild, incomplete paralysis of the upper, middle, and lower radicular nerve group bilaterally as well as mild, incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve bilaterally. The examiner confirmed the Veteran’s diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower extremities and noted that the Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy symptoms began in 1995. However, the examiner failed to provide an opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy disability and whether it could be related to his in-service herbicide agent exposure. Thus, there is no medical nexus opinion of record. In October 2020, the Veteran testified before the Board that his peripheral neuropathy symptoms began shortly after returning from Vietnam. Although he was unable to recall the precise date of when his peripheral neuropathy symptoms began, he believed that it was soon after he had separated from active service. He explained that, once he returned home, he began experiencing muscle spasms in his legs and arms at night, as well as numbness in his hands and feet. Unaware that the symptoms could be related to his herbicide agent exposure, he stated that he tried to push through and ignore the symptoms for many years, which is why he did not seek treatment for his peripheral neuropathy until many years after service. However, he testified that the symptoms have gotten progressively worse over the last 50 years. Additionally, the Veteran’s sister provided a buddy statement in support of his claim in October 2020. She reported witnessing the Veteran experiencing issues with hand grip and coordination of his feet sometime in the 1970s, after he returned home from Vietnam. She further reported that the Veteran’s girlfriend at the time stated that his muscle spasms at night were so severe that they would often wake her up. While she could not recall the precise date of these interactions, she reported that they took place sometime in the 1970s. The Board has no reason to question the credibility of the Veteran’s competent testimony regarding the onset of his peripheral neuropathy symptoms. He has sufficiently asserted experiencing symptoms of peripheral neuropathy since his active service. Competent medical evidence of record does not refute these lay assertions. As such, the Veteran’s statements are probative competent evidence regarding the onset of his condition, and the evidence supporting service connection is at least in equipoise. Affording him the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that he has been experiencing symptoms of a peripheral neuropathy disability of his upper and lower extremities since service. Thus, service connection for peripheral neuropathy (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) of the upper and lower extremities is warranted, as it is a current disability that is related to his in-service herbicide agent exposure. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Benson, 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.