Citation Nr: 21022367 Decision Date: 04/15/21 Archive Date: 04/15/21 DOCKET NO. 15-25 622 DATE: April 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to in-service radiation exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from June 1961 to May 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) by order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (hereinafter “the Court”) in January 2021, which granted a joint motion for remand (JMR) vacating a May 2020 Board decision and remanding the issue on appeal for additional development. The matter initially arose from a May 2014 rating decision by the Detroit, Michigan, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 1. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to in-service radiation exposure, is remanded. In its January 2021 order the Court granted the JMR in which the parties agreed that the prior Board decision had failed to explain how it had determined that the presumption of regularity applied to the wearing of film badges by servicemembers in the U.S. Navy. It was further noted that the Veteran had reported that it was the practice of his senior officer to require the wearing of film badges for big inspections and that they were collected monthly for processing, even when they had not been worn. The Board has again considered the Veteran’s statements concerning his duties as a dental technician, exposure to radiation, and the practices of using radiation badges only in the presence of his senior officer. This history is supported by the fact that the Veteran is now service connected for oral cancer, which was found to be due to exposure to X-ray radiation. In other words, upon re-examination of the evidence of record, the Board now finds that any applicable presumption of regularity as to the wearing of film badges is rebutted. Exposure to radiation from the Veteran’s duties as a dental technician is conceded. The Board also notes that available medical records include diagnoses of prostate cancer, a radiogenic disease under 3.311(b)(2). However, pertinent records have not been forwarded to the Under Secretary for Health for preparation of a dose estimate, to the extent feasible, based upon available methodologies under 3.311(a)(2)(iii). Upon completion of this matter, an additional VA medical opinion should be obtained for an adequate determination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the Veteran’s service treatment records, service personnel records, and any other pertinent evidence of record to the VA Under Secretary for Health for a radiation dose estimate in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(2)(iii). 2. Upon completion of directive #1, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s prostate cancer is at least as likely as not related to active service. The examiner should acknowledge and consider the pertinent evidence of record, include the January 2020 and March 2020 VA medical opinions. Rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Douglas 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.