Citation Nr: 21041514 Decision Date: 07/09/21 Archive Date: 07/09/21 DOCKET NO. 17-60 981 DATE: July 9, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a prostate disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active duty from June 1972 to September 1979, to include service in Korea from November 1972 to October 1973; he has been in receipt of a 100 percent rating based on unemployability since 2019 and has been rendered incompetent. 2. The Veteran had prostatitis in service; however, symptoms were not were not shown to be chronic, not continuous since service, and not shown to a compensable degree within one year of service; current diagnoses or prostatitis and prostate cancer are not casually or etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW A prostate disorder was not incurred in service and is not presumed to have been incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2021. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the claims file. Service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 under the following circumstances: (1) where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury are shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause; or (2) where there is continuity of symptomatology since service; or (3) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 Service connection may also be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases associated with herbicide exposure under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 if a veteran served between April 1968 and August 1971 in or near the Korean Demilitarized Zone. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). As an initial matter, while prostate cancer is listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) as a disorder that is presumed to have been incurred as a result of AO exposure, the Veteran served in Korea from 1972 to 1973, which is outside the time period specified by law for presumptive service connection based on AO exposure. However, as prostate cancer is listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) as a disorder that is presumed to have been incurred in service based on continuity/chronicity, both direct and presumptive service connection on this basis will be addressed. As to a current disorder, the Veteran was diagnosed with prostatitis in 2009 and prostate cancer in 2010. Therefore, the first element of direct service connection is met. As to an in-service incurrence, at the hearing, the Veteran reported being treated multiple times in service for prostatitis; however, service treatment records (STRs) reflect he had prostatitis on one occasion in November 1973. Further, while he reported difficulty urinating at separation, the examiner marked that the Veteran's prostate was normal. Nevertheless, as the Veteran sought treatment for prostatitis in service, the second element of direct service connection is met. As to a nexus, in an April 2014 VA examination, the examiner opined that prostate cancer was not related to prostatitis. He reasoned that the Veteran did not have problems with prostatitis after discharge. There is no contradictory opinion. Based on the above, the medical evidence does not support a finding that a prostate disorder, to include prostatitis and prostate cancer, was directly incurred in service. Specifically, the Veteran was treated for prostatitis on one occasion in service and the examiner marked the prostate as normal on separation. Further, the April 2014 VA examiner remarked that the Veteran's prostatitis was not chronic, as he had been diagnosed with prostatitis almost 40 years after separation, and that the current diagnosis of prostate cancer had no bearing on the in-service prostatitis diagnosis. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support the claim of direct service connection. Turning to presumption service connection for prostate cancer, it did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. Specifically, it was not diagnosed until 2010. As prostate cancer was not shown until 2010, over 30 years after separation, this is well outside the one-year legal presumption for chronic diseases such as prostate cancer. Further, the disorder did not manifest itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation of service. Specifically, at the hearing, the Veteran reported being treated for prostatitis over the years since separation; however, clinical records do not show treatment until 2010, over 30 years since separation. Therefore, this evidence does not support presumptive service connection on a "manifest within one-year from separation" basis, and the medical evidence does not support presumptive service connection. In light of the above, the medical evidence does not support presumptive service connection based on chronicity/continuity. In sum, the medical evidence does not support that a prostate disorder was directly incurred in service and/or was presumed to have been incurred in service. The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements and testimony that a prostate disorder began in service. While he is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it came to him through his senses, he is not competent to offer an etiology of this disorder. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records, clinical evidence, and examinations obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28. Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Ragofsky, 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.