Citation Nr: 21016169 Decision Date: 03/22/21 Archive Date: 03/22/21 DOCKET NO. 14-13 357 DATE: March 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer as due to herbicide agent exposure is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1971 to August 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2011 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board previously remanded the Veteran’s claim in July 2018 seeking the names of the physician(s) that treated the Veteran for his prostate cancer and to locate medical records related to the diagnosis and treatment of the Veteran’s prostate cancer, as well as to obtain information regarding his exposure to herbicide agents in service. The matter was returned to the Board but was remanded again in a July 2020 decision with a finding that the previous Board remand directives were not followed. The matter is before the Board once more. While the Board recognizes the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), attempted to obtain the names of the physician(s) and a signed release for the absent medical records, there are indications that the Veteran may have not received the correspondence from the AOJ to develop the claim. Additionally, the Veteran alleges personally handling 55-gallon drums of chemicals in service. Attempts were not made to determine what, if any, chemicals the Veteran handled during his service. Furthermore, the Veteran has never been afforded a VA examination addressing his contention that his prostate cancer was from handling 55-gallon drums of chemicals while on active duty. The Veteran’s medical records show a current diagnosis of prostate cancer, he alleges in-service handling of 55-gallon drums of chemicals, but no opinion as to the nexus of his prostate cancer has been rendered. For the above reasons, the Board finds a remand is warranted. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran at his last known address. Ask the Veteran to complete a release for any treatment records dated since May 2007 concerning the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Make two requests for the authorized records from the treatment provider(s) identified by the Veteran unless it is clear after the first request the second would be futile. 2. Develop the Veteran’s claim for service connection for prostate cancer as a result of exposure to herbicide agents, to include asking the Veteran for information relative to the approximate dates, location, and nature of his exposure, to include a description of any duties, location, and nature of his exposure, to include a description of any duties that place him on the perimeter of the base(s) on which he served in Thailand or that involved handling 55-gallon drums of chemicals. 3. Verify what, if anything, was stored in the 55-gallon drums handled by the Veteran while in service. Specifically, while the Veteran served in Nellis Air Force Base (AFB), Nevada from June 14, 1971 to July 4, 1973, in Nakhon Phanom Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB), Thailand from July 5, 1973 to July 31, 1974, and in Taipei, Taiwan from August 1, 1974 to November 1, 1975. 4. After completing the above, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his prostate cancer. The examiner must review the claims file. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Is the Veteran’s prostate cancer at least as likely as not related to service, including the Veteran’s handling of 55-gallon drums? (Continued on the next page)   All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained, and a complete and detailed rationale for any conclusions reached should be provided (a bare conclusory statement will be deemed inadequate). It is not sufficient to base an opinion on a mere lack of documentation of complaints in the service or post-service treatment records.  If the clinician is unable to provide an opinion on these matters, the clinician must state whether the inability to render an opinion is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the clinician (does not have the knowledge or training) 5. After completing the above, an any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. if the benefit sough remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Robert R. Watkins Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Lee Feldman, 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.