Citation Nr: 21027013 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 13-35 625 DATE: May 4, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a prostate condition (claimed as prostate cancer), as due to herbicide exposure, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record does not indicate that the Veteran has a current prostate disability, to include prostate cancer, for VA purposes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a prostate condition (claimed as prostate cancer), as due to herbicide exposure, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from April 1970 to April 1974. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This matter was previously before the Board in July 2015 and April 2020, where it was remanded for additional development. The Board notes that there was substantial compliance with its April 2020 remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008). Entitlement to service connection for a prostate condition (claimed as prostate cancer), as due to herbicide exposure. The Veteran contends that he currently has a prostate condition that is directly related to his exposure to herbicide agents during active service in Vietnam. Generally, to prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Additionally, the Board notes that, VA laws and regulations provide that, if a Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service, certain listed diseases are presumptively service-connected. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). A Veteran who "served in the Republic of Vietnam" between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975 is presumed to have been exposed during such service to herbicides. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). The listed diseases are: AL amyloidosis, chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, Type II diabetes mellitus (adult-onset diabetes), Hodgkin's disease, ischemic heart disease, chronic B-cell leukemias, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Parkinson's disease, acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy, porphyria cutanea tarda, prostate cancer, respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx or trachea); and soft-tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma). In addition, the Secretary of VA has determined that there is no positive association between exposure to herbicide agents and any other condition for which the Secretary has not specifically determined that a presumption of service connection is warranted. See Notice, 59 Fed. Reg. 341-46 (1994); Notice, 61 Fed. Reg. 41, 442-49 (1996); Notice, 72 Fed. Reg. 32, 395-32, 407 (June 12, 2007); Notice, 74 Fed. Reg. 21, 258021, 260 (May 7, 2009); Notice, 75 Fed. Reg. 32540 (June 8, 2010). As an initial matter, the Board notes that VA has confirmed the Veteran's service in Vietnam during the applicable period; and thus, his exposure to herbicides is conceded. See Rating Decision, March 2014; see also Board Decision, April 2020. The Board further notes that, after a review of the record, to include the Veteran's medical treatment records, the Veteran does not have a current disability for VA purposes. The requirement for a current disability is satisfied if the disability is present at any point proximate to the claim, during the claim, or to the appeal period. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2014). If there is no evidence of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Additionally, there must be a demonstration of symptoms proximate to, or since, the time the application is filed. Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a prostate condition, to include any elevated prostate levels. See STRs. Post-service VA treatment records reflect notations of elevated prostate-specific antigen levels; however, additional notations reflect a normal prostate size and landmarks, with no diagnosis of a prostate condition given. See VA treatment records. In a November 2020 VA prostate cancer examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran does not currently have nor has he ever been diagnosed with prostate cancer or any additional diagnoses that pertain to a prostate condition; the examiner remarked that there was no objective evidence to support a diagnosis. The examiner opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not etiologically related to the Veteran's service, to include herbicide exposure, as there is no objective evidence of a prostate condition or cancer diagnosis in the claims file. The examiner highlighted that the Veteran specifically denied having a prostate condition. As such, the medical evidence does not reflect treatment or diagnosis of a prostate condition, to include prostate cancer, at any time since or proximate to when the Veteran filed the present claim. Based on the above, the Board finds that in the absence of a confirmed diagnosis of a prostate condition or symptoms arising to the level of functional impairment related to the Veteran's prostate, either during or post service, service connection for that disability cannot be established. As previously noted, there is no objective medical evidence of a current prostate condition since the Veteran filed his claim. Moreover, the evidence of record does not show that any reported prostate pain amounts to a functional impairment. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The record is essentially void of competent and credible medical evidence of a current disability. Therefore, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the competent evidence of record is against the Veteran's claim, and service connection for a prostate condition is not warranted; and the claim is denied. While the Veteran believes he has a prostate condition, to include prostate cancer, he has not shown to have the requisite medical knowledge and expertise to be deemed competent to provide any diagnoses in this case. The issue of providing a diagnosis is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). He has not provided, nor does the claims file include, evidence of a current disability upon which to grant the claim. (Continued on the next page) In reaching its determination, the Board has considered the doctrine of giving the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, under 38 U.S.C. § 5107 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, but does not find that the evidence is of such approximate balance as to warrant its application. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54-56 (1991). DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Hodges, 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.