Citation Nr: 22017614 Decision Date: 03/25/22 Archive Date: 03/25/22 DOCKET NO. 14-09 908 DATE: March 25, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for multiple myeloma is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has been shown to have multiple myeloma that is related to his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Multiple myeloma was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1964 to June 1972. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2010 rating decision. The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2016. A transcript is of record. The Board remanded the case for further development in January 2018 and February 2020. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. Law and Analysis Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. That an injury or disease occurred in service is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury or disease. Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case and when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Lynch v. McDonough, No. 2020-2067, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37307, 37312 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2021) (benefit-of-the-doubt rule not for application when evidence persuasively favors one side or the other). In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for multiple myeloma. The Veteran has claimed that his multiple myeloma is due to exposure to ionizing radiation during service and exposure to benzene and trichloroethylene (TCE). A DD Form 214 lists the Veteran's military occupational specialty as a combat engineer and a nuclear power plant mechanic. Dr. C.K. (initials used to protect privacy), a radiation oncologist, provided a September 2020 private medical opinion in support of the Veteran's claim. He noted that the Veteran served as a nuclear power plant mechanic, which would have required the daily use of solvents containing chemicals, such as TCE and benzene. He stated that the use of those solvents is confirmed by contemporaneous military training manuals for mechanics. He also indicated that both TCE and benzene are considered human carcinogens. Dr. C.K. explained that the Veteran does not have other risk factors for multiple myeloma and that he was diagnosed 12 years earlier than the average age for multiple myeloma. He further noted that the latency for carcinogen-associated multiple myeloma is an average of two to three decades, which is consistent the latency period in this case. Therefore, Dr. C.K. stated that he is persuaded, based upon the medical and scientific studies and to a high degree of confidence, that the Veteran's multiple myeloma is at least as likely as not a direct result of his exposure to TCE and benzene in service. The Board finds that Dr. C.K's medical opinion has high probative value, as he provided a thorough rationale with an accurate discussion of the relevant facts in this particular case and medical literature. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). There is no medical opinion otherwise addressing any exposure to TCE and benzene. Therefore, the Board concludes that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for multiple myeloma. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Kuczynski, 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.