Citation Nr: 21042618 Decision Date: 07/13/21 Archive Date: 07/13/21 DOCKET NO. 16-32 317 DATE: July 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include prostatectomy, due to exposure to herbicides and chemicals, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from August 1972 to October 1993. In July 2019, he testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeal (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board in October 2019. In October 2019, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim for additional development. Unfortunately, the Board finds the prior Board remand directives were not substantially complied with. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Specifically, the October 2019 prior Board remand directed the RO to refer the case to JSRRC for verification of exposure to herbicides and/or chemicals; if exposure is not corroborated, the RO should prepare a formal finding that sufficient information required to verify the claimed exposures do not exist; schedule the Veteran for a VA examination; and the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not that any diagnosed prostate cancer had its onset during, or was otherwise related to, the Veteran's active military service, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides or any other chemicals. See October 2019 Board Decision. While the record indicates that the RO did refer the case to JSRRC and obtain a VA examination, the Board finds the RO did not substantially comply with the remand directives. The findings by JSRRC stated that it does not research exposure to environmental toxins or substances other than those identified in M21-1 IV.ii.1.H. The Board finds that the RO failed to provide substantial compliance with the first remand directive as the RO failed to obtain either a negative or positive finding as to the claimed exposures. The RO failed to submit another request to verify the Veteran's exposure to chemicals in accordance with the JSRRC's response. In addition, the RO failed to provide a formal finding with sufficient information to verify that the exposure does not exist. The Board finds that the RO did not substantially comply with the prior Board remand. In addition, the Board finds the November 2020 VA medical opinion that was obtained is inadequate. Specifically, the November 2020 VA medical opinion fails to provide a sufficient rationale to support the negative medical opinion. The examiner only addresses presumptive service connection and did not address the first part of the requested medical opinion, direct service connection. Also, the examiner's rationale was based on the fact that the Veteran did not serve in Vietnam. The Veteran does not assert that his exposure to chemicals was a result of serving in Vietnam but was a result of working on planes that were in Vietnam and exposure to other chemicals, to include jet fuel. Based on the above, the Board finds a remand is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should request from the Veteran the approximate dates, location, and nature of the alleged herbicide and/or chemical exposure. Then, obtain, to the extent possible, verification of exposure to herbicides and/or chemicals. 2. If exposure to herbicides, chemicals, and radiation is not corroborated, the RO should prepare a formal finding. 3. Obtain an addendum to the November 2020 VA medical opinion from the November 2020 VA examiner, if available. The examiner is must provide a medical opinion with supporting rationale on: Whether it is at least as likely as not (at least an approximate balance of positive and negative balance) that any diagnosed prostate cancer, including prostatectomy, has its onset during, or was otherwise related to, the Veteran's active military service, to include as a result of exposure to herbicides or any other chemicals (if found). The opinion must be supported by a rationale. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Glaeser, Jennifer 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.