Citation Nr: 21028917 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 10-18 310A DATE: May 12, 2021 ORDER Service connection for prostate cancer and its residuals (erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence) is denied. VETERAN CONTENTIONS The Veteran contends that he was assigned to security for missile sites in Okinawa, Japan while in service and his duties included overseeing security guards, security dogs, and security of the missile sites. While walking the perimeter of the missile sites, the Veteran contends that he came in contact with a chemical that was being sprayed to kill the foliage. He contends that while he did not know at the time what the chemical was, he has since been told that it was Agent Orange and non-tactical chemical agents including pesticides. That exposure, he asserts, led to his development of prostate cancer. The Veteran further contends that he was given a prostatectomy to treat the cancer and now experiences erectile dysfunction and urinary frequency as a result of that procedure. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was not exposed to herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, during his active service. 2. The Veteran's prostate cancer developed many years after his separation from service and is not related to his service, or to any incident therein. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as secondary to herbicide exposure, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army during the Vietnam Era from September 1967 to June 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2007 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). It was previously before the Board in February 2015, July 2015, and December 2017. Each time it was remanded for further development. The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the remand directives of the most recent Board remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Now, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted for the Veteran's prostate cancer or its residuals. Generally, service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from a disease or injury incurred in active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires evidence of a current disability; an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 116667 (Fed. Cir 2004). Service connection may also be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) when a Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent, as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6), during active duty service. Here, the Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer with residual voiding and erectile dysfunctions. See 1/22/2021 C&P Examination. The Board now considers both the Veteran's prostate cancer and its residuals for service connection. See Grimes v. McDonough, No. 18-1017, 2021 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 742, at *2 (Apr. 28, 2021) (holding that pursuant to Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), a claim for service connection may encompass a related condition that is initially referenced by the claimant but not diagnosed until later in the appeal stream, regardless of whether the claim is initially granted or denied by the RO); 8/4/2008 Notice Of Disagreement. Although the Veteran is currently diagnosed with a disease listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), namely prostate cancer, the Board finds that it is unlikely that he was exposed to either Agent Orange or non-tactical, commercial chemical agents during his time in active service, as he did not serve in a location where the Department of Defense has acknowledged use of those substances, and his exposure has not otherwise been competently demonstrated. See 2/25/2021 Correspondence (Decision Review Officer Memorandum); 11/22/2021 C&P Examination. Moreover, there is no evidence indicating diagnosis or clinical manifestations of prostate cancer while in service and the cancer was not diagnosed until 37 years after service, strongly suggesting that it did not have its initial clinical onset during service, as further explained below. Two VA examinations were afforded to the Veteran in furtherance of his claim of service connection for prostate cancer. The May 2015 opinion was inadequate for VA purposes because it did not consider the Veteran's claimed exposure to non-tactical chemical agents. However, the January 2021 opinion was based on a review of the relevant records, medical literature, and was supported by an adequate rationale. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302-04. Therefore, the Board finds that opinion of significant probative value. In this opinion, the examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's prostate cancer was related to his active service as his exposure to herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, could not be confirmed, and he initially developed prostate cancer many years after his separation from service. Notably, there are no contradictory medical opinions of record. While the Veteran is competent to report on all things of which he has personal knowledge derived from his own senses, the Veteran did not know what was being sprayed on the perimeter of the missile sites he guarded. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); 3/14/2007 Correspondence from Veteran. Therefore, neither service connection on a presumptive or direct basis for prostate cancer is warranted. Because the claim of service connection for prostate cancer is denied, any claim of service connection for residual conditions arising out of that condition is also denied. A preponderance of the evidence is contrary to the Veteran's claim; therefore, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Z. Sloley, 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.