Citation Nr: 21042456 Decision Date: 07/13/21 Archive Date: 07/13/21 DOCKET NO. 16-54 720 DATE: July 13, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1978 to February 1999. This appeal was previously before the Board in December 2018. The issue was remanded for further development. The Veteran's outstanding VA and/or non-VA treatment records were sought. Specifically, VA treatment records from March 1999 to March 2013 and from April 2014 to the present were asked to be obtained and associated with the claims file. The Veteran's outstanding treatment records were requested and treatment records from April 2014 to the present have been associated with the Veteran's claims file. However, the VA treatment records from March 1999 to March 2013, have not been. On remand, the Board will once again request that those medical records be associated with the claims file. The December 2018 Board decision also sought to verify the dates of all periods of active duty service, prior to March 1994 from the National Personnel Records Center (NRPC); and to obtain all of the Veteran's military personnel records. VA received the Veteran's Service Record, which appears to show his active duty service dates from May 1978 to March 1985 and from December 1985 to February 1999. VA also received numerous Military Personnel Records in September 2019. As such, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance as to the verification of the Veteran's active duty service dates and has obtained his Military Personnel Records. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The December 2018 Board decision also sought to verify the Veteran's assertions of exposure to pesticides and solvents, while he was stationed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland; and whether he was reportedly exposed to ionizing radiation during his active duty service. The Joint Services Records and Research Center (JSRRC) was asked to verify the exposure to pesticides and the Under Secretary for Health was asked to obtain a dosage estimate, as well as referral to the Under Secretary for Benefits. The Board notes that separate requests were made regarding both exposure to pesticides and solvents, and exposure to ionizing radiation. However, there has been no indication that there have been any responses regarding either request. VA received the Veteran's representative's Appellate Brief in October 2020. The representative noted that the Veteran's personnel and medical records were received by VA. However, the representative also noted that in December 2019, a request was made by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to JSRRC regarding exposure to pesticides and solvents and that a separate request was also submitted for exposure to ionizing radiation. It was noted that no records appear in the claims file from JSRRC. The representative pointed out that VA examinations and opinions were obtained in June 2020, prior to completion of the development of the case. Here, the Board agrees with the Veteran's representative, that the requested development has not yet taken place. Although the AOJ requested further development regarding the Veteran's exposure to pesticides, solvents, and ionizing radiation; the development does not appear to have taken place. As such, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance as to the December 2018 Board remand directives, as they pertain to the Veteran's exposure to pesticides, solvents, and ionizing radiation. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Accordingly, service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. Specifically, VA treatment records from March 1999 to March 2013. If the RO cannot locate such records, it must specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them, and explain in writing why further attempts to locate or obtain any government records would be futile. The RO must then: (a) notify the claimant of the specific records that it is unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts VA has made to obtain that evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claims. The claimant must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Contact the Joint Services Records and Research Center (JSRRC) to request development to verify the Veteran's assertions of exposure to pesticides and solvents while he was stationed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, in Maryland, working at the US Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA), in the Pesticide Monitoring, Pesticide Management Division (PMPMD). The Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records show that he was a biological lab technician from 1978-1984. The Board also notes that a December 12, 2019 Correspondence appears to show a request for such development. However, there is no response from JSRRC contained in the Veteran's claims file. All efforts to verify the reported exposure must be documented in the claims file. 3. Undertake the appropriate development to verify the Veteran's reported exposure to ionizing radiation during his service in the Army. Follow the pertinent procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.311, to specifically include obtaining a dosage estimate from the Under Secretary for Health and referral to the Under Secretary for Benefits. The Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records show a record of occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. All efforts to verify the reported exposure must be documented in the claims file. 4. Once the above development has been completed, obtain new VA addendum medical opinions to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's prostate cancer. If an opinion cannot be provided without affording the Veteran a VA examination, then a VA examination should be provided. The VA examiner should address the following questions: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's prostate cancer had an in-service onset (to include manifesting to a compensable degree within one year of service discharge) or is otherwise related to his military service, to include genitourinary/prostate problems, exposure to pesticides and solvents, and exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls as an electric utility worker. See July 2014 Notice of Disagreement; October 2016 VA Form 9; and August 2018 Appellate Brief. The VA examiner should comment upon the articles submitted by the Veteran regarding cancer growth and cancer mortality among electric utility workers exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls. See July 2014 Correspondence and October 2016 Third Party Correspondence. A rationale for all requested opinions should be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she should provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner should explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. Z. SAHRAIE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Fu, 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.