Citation Nr: 21023442 Decision Date: 04/20/21 Archive Date: 04/20/21 DOCKET NO. 19-14 782A DATE: April 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure and/or radiation exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 1962 to August 1965. He had verified service in Korea from November 1964 to April 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to herbicide exposure and/or radiation exposure, is remanded. Throughout the appeal, the Veteran has contended that he developed prostate cancer as a result of herbicide agent exposure during service. In a May 2017 notice of disagreement, in a June 2017 statement, and during the February 2021 hearing, the Veteran testified that he was exposed to Agent Orange during his service in Korea while refilling containers used to spray herbicide agents as a defoliant. In the June 2017 statement and during the February 2021 hearing, the Veteran also reported that he was exposed to Agent Orange at Fort Walters in Mineral Wells, Texas, from March 1965 to August 1965, while spraying a defoliant under fences, around bases, and in the infield of a baseball field. The AOJ developed the Veteran’s claimed exposure to Agent Orange in Korea; however, it did not develop the Veteran’s claimed exposure to Agent Orange at Fort Walters. Therefore, on remand, attempts should be made to verify the Veteran’s claimed exposure to Agent Orange at Fort Walters. In addition, in the June 2017 statement and during the February 2021 hearing, the Veteran alleged that he was exposed to radar radiation at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas, from July 1963 to January 1964, while winterizing generators. He indicated that he and another soldier were hit by radar radiation when the radar missed the catcher. The AOJ has not developed the Veteran’s claimed exposure to radar radiation. Therefore, on remand, attempts should be made to verify the Veteran’s claimed exposure to radar radiation at Dyess Air Force Base. In addition, in a March 2021 statement, the Veteran reported that he was treated for prostate cancer at a private cancer center from December 2009 to March 2010. These records have not been obtained and associated with the record. Therefore, on remand, attempts should be made to obtain any outstanding private treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct all factual development necessary to determine whether the Veteran was otherwise exposed to herbicide agents while on active duty, to include while stationed at Fort Walters in Mineral Wells, Texas, from March 1965 to August 1965. All efforts to verify any such service must be documented in the record. If no records are found and additional requests would be futile, notify the Veteran and his representative. 2. Conduct all factual development necessary to determine whether the Veteran was otherwise exposed to radar radiation at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas, from July 1963 to January 1964. All efforts to verify any such service must be documented in the record. If no records are found and additional requests would be futile, notify the Veteran and his representative. 3. Obtain any relevant outstanding private treatment records. A specific request should be made for treatment records from Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, from December 2009 to March 2010 (as identified in a March 2021 statement from the Veteran). J. B. FREEMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Osegueda 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.