Citation Nr: 21015631 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 16-08 879 DATE: March 18, 2021 ORDER Service connection for lung cancer is granted. REMANDED Total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his lung cancer is at least as likely as not related to exposure to jet fuel exhaust fumes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for lung cancer are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Air Force from July 1978 to January 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from April 2013 and November 2013 rating decisions issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2018, the Board remanded these matters for further development. Lung Cancer Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection for a disability, a Veteran must show: (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. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Veteran has a current diagnosis of lung cancer. The Board finds this to satisfy the first element for service connection. At his June 2020 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he worked as an administrative specialist during his military service and would go on the flight line and hangers along with the orderly room and office. The Veteran also reported that he was exposed to the exhaust of jet fuel and jet fuel flames. Though the Veteran’s military occupation specialty is listed as apprentice administration specialist, he is competent to describe the facts and circumstances of his service. As such, the Board finds the Veteran’s statements to be credible and finds the second element for service connection to be satisfied. Turning to the third element, medical nexus, the evidence consists of a June 2020 VA examination. A VA examiner examined the Veteran and opined that it was as likely as not that the Veteran’s lung cancer was caused due to inhalation of jet fuel exhaust fumes. The examiner provided citations to scientific studies and news articles relating jet fuel exhaust fumes with cancer. The examiner is competent to provide this opinion, the Board finds them to be credible, and affords the opinion great probative weight. The Board finds the evidence to be in relative equipoise. If the evidence is supportive or is in relative equipoise, then the veteran prevails. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection for lung cancer is granted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304. REASONS FOR REMAND TDIU With respect to the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to a TDIU, the claim is inextricably intertwined with the grant of service connection for lung cancer because the TDIU issue may be affected by the assignment of the disability rating and effective date for the grant of service connection. The appropriate remedy where a pending claim is inextricably intertwined with a claim currently on appeal is to remand the claim on appeal pending the adjudication of the inextricably intertwined claim. (Continued on the next page)   The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Once the RO has assigned a disability rating and effective date for the grant of service connection for lung cancer and completing any other development necessary, readjudicate the claim of entitlement to a TDIU considering all pertinent evidence and legal authority. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Chandeck, 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.