Citation Nr: 21022560 Decision Date: 04/16/21 Archive Date: 04/16/21 DOCKET NO. 18-37 470 DATE: April 16, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bladder cancer is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran had at least 30 days of service at Camp Lejeune. 2. The Veteran’s bladder cancer was not incurred in or related to any event or injury in active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bladder cancer have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307(a)(7), 3.309(f).  REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1959 to February 1962. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an October 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Board previously remanded this matter for further development in February 2019 and November 2020. The Veteran contends that he has residuals of bladder cancer, and that service connection is warranted on a presumptive basis because he had service at Camp Lejeune and was exposed to contaminated water there. He has written that on three or four occasions, he was sent to train with Marines at Camp Lejeune, to practice amphibious landings. He wrote that every time he was there, he stayed on base for at least a month, and that he regularly bathed and drank the water while there. Generally, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred coincident with or aggravated by service.  38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).  Service connection generally requires evidence satisfying three criteria: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship (“nexus”) between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  VA has recognized that veterans who served at Camp Lejeune for no less than 30 days between August 1, 1953 and December 31, 1987 have potential exposure to contaminants in the base water supply. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(7). Under this law, there are eight diseases that are presumed to be the result of exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune: adult leukemia, aplastic anemia and other myelodysplastic syndromes, bladder, kidney or liver cancers, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and Parkinson’s disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(f). The Board has reviewed all of the evidence of record, but finds that entitlement to service connection for bladder cancer is not warranted. The record does show that the Veteran had a diagnosis of bladder cancer, one of the eight diseases that is included in the presumptive disease list under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(f). The Veteran’s private treatment records show that in May 2007, he was admitted for a bladder tumors which were found to be caused by bladder cancer. He underwent cystoscopy and transurethral resection. The Veteran has also reported that he continues to have residuals from his disorder, including urinary tract infections and voiding dysfunction. The evidence does not show, however, that he had at least 30 days of service at Camp Lejeune, and service connection cannot be granted on a presumptive basis. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(7). The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) made all possible efforts to obtain records that could verify any service at Camp Lejeune, and the Board finds that the prior remand instructions have been substantially complied with. The Veteran’s complete service treatment records and personnel records for his active duty service were obtained, and the National Personnel Records Center was contacted to attempt to verify any Camp Lejeune temporary duty. The AOJ issued a Formal Finding in March 2021 that found a lack of information required to corroborate the Veteran’s allegation of temporary assignment to Camp Lejeune in 1961. The memorandum explained that it did not have the minimum information required to make a submission to the JSRRC or the Marine Corps Archives, such as the approximate date the temporary duty took place, within a one-month period. It found that there were no other appropriate repositories that warranted contact in order to attempt to verify the claimed temporary duty. The Veteran’s service personnel records and service treatment records do not show any indication of service at Camp Lejeune. The Veteran’s Record of Assignments shows that he was stationed at Fort Riley, in Kansas, Fort Story in Virginia, and in Nashville, Tennessee. Records also document that the Veteran attended trainings in Atlanta, Georgia. These records do provide a complete accounting of the Veteran’s station locations during his active duty service. A Chronological Record of Military Service shows that the Veteran was stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky from December 1, 1959, to December 7, 1959; at Fort Riley, Kansas from December 8, 1959, to February 20, 1960; at Fort Eustis, Virginia from February 21, 1960, to March 1, 1960; and at Fort Story, Virginia from October 7, 1960, to February 28, 1962. The Veteran also had service in the Army Reserve following his active duty period, but the record indicates that his annual trainings occurred in Atlanta, Georgia, and that he also had assignments in Nashville and at Fort Story. The Board has considered the Veteran’s assertions that he had more than 30 days of service at Camp Lejeune, but unfortunately finds these assertions are not found to be credible. The Board, as the factfinder, is required to evaluate the credibility of evidence. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F3.d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (recognizing the Board’s “authority to discount the weight and probity of evidence in light of its own inherent characteristics and its relationship to other items of evidence”). Here, the Veteran’s statements regarding service at Camp Lejeune are inconsistent when compared to the other evidence of record, including his service personnel records and treatment records. See Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36, 40 (a non-combat veteran’s lay statements must be weighed against other evidence, including the absence of military records supporting the lay assertions); Buczynski v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 221 (2011) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 803(7) for the proposition that the absence of an entry in a record may be evidence against the existence of a fact if it would ordinarily be recorded). The Veteran’s service records have been obtained, and they clearly list the Veteran’s locations throughout his entire period of active service, and these locations do not include Camp Lejeune. The Board finds that it is implausible that had the Veteran been stationed at Camp Lejeune for multiple periods of longer than a month, it would not have been recorded in his personnel records. The Veteran did not provide any exact dates when he believes he was stationed at Camp Lejeune, or even recall exactly how many times he was there. He wrote only that he was sent to train with Marines at Camp Lejeune on three or four occasions in “approximately 1961.” In the absence of any more specific information, the AOJ was unable to make any further inquiries regarding this claimed service, and the Board finds that they did make all appropriate efforts to verify the Veteran’s claims. In light of the extensive documentation in the personnel and service treatment records indicating where the Veteran served, the Board finds that the evidence weighs against the assertion that the Veteran had at least 30 days of service at Camp Lejeune. The Board acknowledges that while the Veteran may not intentionally have provided statements which are inaccurate in light of the evidence of record, human memory is fallible, and the Veteran may not have correctly remembered the events that occurred over 50 years ago. The Board therefore finds that the Veteran’s statements regarding service at Camp Lejeune are not credible and are not afforded any probative weight. The Board has also considered whether service connection can be granted on a direct basis, but finds that it is not warranted. The Veteran has not actually alleged that his bladder cancer began in service or that it was caused by any other event, disease, or injury in service. There is no indication in the service treatment records of any bladder disorder or injury, and no other evidence demonstrating any relationship between bladder cancer and service. The Board is therefore unable to award service connection for bladder cancer residuals on a direct basis. The Board therefore finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran had at least 30 days of service at Camp Lejeune that would allow for a presumption of exposure to contaminated water, and there is no evidence indicating that the Veteran’s bladder cancer was incurred in service or was related to any event or injury in service. The claim is denied. In reaching this conclusion the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Mary E. Rude, 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.