Citation Nr: 22013451 Decision Date: 03/09/22 Archive Date: 03/09/22 DOCKET NO. 18-25 681 DATE: March 9, 2022 REMANDED The issue of service connection for prostate cancer, as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. The issue of service connection for hypertension, as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. The issue of service connection for diabetes mellitus (DM), type II, as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. The issue of service connection for a kidney condition, as secondary to DM, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from January 1949 to September 1952. This matter was before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in November 2021 and remanded for additional development regarding the Veteran's reported exposure to Agent Orange (AO), Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and Chlordane while stationed at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey (NJ), and for VA examinations to determine the etiology of the conditions in accordance with the April 2021 joint motion for remand (JMR) from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The Board must again remand the matter for compliance with its November 2021 remand directives. 1. The issue of service connection for prostate cancer, as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. 2. The issue of service connection for hypertension, as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. 3. The issue of service connection for DM, as due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. 4. The issue of service connection for a kidney condition, as secondary to DM, is remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. BACKGROUND FOR THE RO ADJUDICATOR: In April 2021, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims directed that this matter be remanded. The Board must ensure compliance with the remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet.App. 268 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Court or the Board confers on the veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders). The November 2021 Board remand directed the RO to contact DoD to attempt to verify the Veteran's reported AO and/or DDT exposure, from January 1949 to September 1952, while stationed at Fort Monmouth, NJ. The remand also directed the RO to schedule the Veteran for VA examinations, which were conducted in January 2022. The response to a December 2021 VA request for information regarding AO use, testing, and storage outside of the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) shows that the DoD Compensation Service has not identified any location in NJ where AO was used, tested, stored, or transported. Instead, the response provided a general response that range management, brush clearing, and weed killing were accomplished with commercial herbicides on all military bases worldwide. However, the response does not specifically address the potential use, testing, or storage of DDT or Chlordane in NJ. The response stated that DoD found no evidence of AO use, testing, storage, or transportation in NJ. However, the response stated that the claim should be referred to VBA Compensation Service's Military Records Research Center (MRRC) for any information that can be provided to corroborate the Veteran's reported exposure. The response also stated that additional research should be conducted by the RO via Virtual VA Compensation and Pension Service Stressor Verification Site, or by contacting the Marine Corps Gray Research Center. As to the recommendation that the RO contact the Marine Corps Gray Research Center, it is unclear whether the recommendation's author was aware that the Veteran did not serve in the Marine Corps, or whether the Gray Research Center would nonetheless have information as to Fort Monmouth, which is an Army installation. Although the December 2021 DoD response recommended the above identified additional research, the record shows that the recommended additional research was not conducted. The January 2022 VA medical opinions appear to have presumed the Veteran's in-service exposure to DDT and Chlordane and provided the opinion that the Veteran's current prostate cancer, hypertension, and DM are less likely than not incurred in-service, or caused or aggravated by in-service exposure to DDT and Chlordane. The provided rationale is that other than the long-recognized neurologic toxicity associated with DDT poisoning and laboratory abnormalities in DDT-exposed workers, human health effects of DDT exposure are not established. Regarding a relationship between the Veteran's current prostate cancer, hypertension, and DM and reported in-service AO exposure, the January 2022 VA medical opinions provided negative nexus opinions on all conditions. However, the opinions are based on the December 2021 DoD records research response stating that there is no evidence that AO was used, tested, stored, or transported in NJ. As the record shows that VA did not conduct additional research regarding AO exposure, as referred in the December 2021 DoD research request response, and no further research as to DDT and chlordane exposure, remand is necessary for the RO to conduct additional research pertaining to the Veteran's reported in-service exposure to these toxins while stationed at Fort Monmouth, NJ. In particular, and in addition to the question of whether the Veteran was exposed to AO, the RO should ensure appropriate research into the question of whether the Veteran was exposed to DDT and chlordane as he has alleged. THE REMAND DIRECTIVES FOLLOW. 2. Contact the following to research the Veteran's assertion of exposure to AO, and/or DDT, and/or chlordane during his military service from January 1949 to September 1952 while a member of Engineer Detachment, 1301st Army Security Agency at Fort Monmouth, NJ: Fort Monmouth Site restoration Records website at: https://fortmonmouthrecords.com VBA Compensation Service's Military Records Research Center (MRRC); NARA, College Park, MD) and attempt to verify whether AO was used, from January 1949 to September 1952, at Fort Monmouth, NJ; Marine Corps Gray Research Center, Attn: Archives, 2040 Broadway Street, Quantico, VA 22314-5107. (The RO may opt to contact the Marine Corps Center by telephone to ask if it has information about the U.S. Army's post at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. A report of contact memorandum should be inserted in the record if the center indicates it has no such records.) IF ANY EXPOSURE IS VERIFIED, determine if the Veteran would have been provided any protective clothing, protective mask or any other such safety equipment. 3. IF SUCH EXPOSURE IS VERIFIED, CONTACT ANY APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, to include, if appropriate, any DoD agencies on or having responsibilities for Fort Monmouth, NJ; or, if appropriate, the National Academy of Sciences; or, if appropriate, the U.S. General Services Administration; or any other appropriate U.S. Government agency to determine IF THE DEGREE OF SUCH EXPOSURE ON PERSONS SUCH AS THE VETERAN has been determined. 4. IF EXPOSURE IS VERIFIED, provide the Veteran with VA addendum opinions to determine whether his prostate cancer, hypertension, and DM are due to AO exposure, and whether his kidney condition is caused or aggravated by his DM. Provide the examiner with a copy of the November 2021 Board remand and any information from probative sources indicating the amount of such exposure. The examiner MUST provide the requested opinions contained in the November 2021 Board remand and MUST SPECIFICALLY address and discuss all evidence listed. 5. Following the review and any additional development deemed necessary, re-adjudicate the claims. Should the claims not be granted in their entirety, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and forward the claims to the Board for adjudication. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). These claims must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Timothy T. Emmart The Board's action is binding only in this case. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.