Citation NR: 9705845	
Decision Date: 02/21/97		Archive Date: 03/04/97
DOCKET NO.  94-19 650	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Honolulu, 
Hawaii


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for multiple myeloma, 
asserted to be secondary to exposure to ionizing radiation.  


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Theresa M. Catino, Associate Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active military duty from November 1951 
to May 1954, from September 1954 to September 1958, and from 
October 1958 to February 1978.  




CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL

The veteran contends, in essence, that the regional office 
(RO) committed error in denying his claim for service 
connection for multiple myeloma.  He asserts that this 
disorder was caused by in-service exposure to ionizing 
radiation.  Specifically, he claims that he was exposed to 
radiation when he serviced radioactive buoys while aboard the 
Coast Guard Cutter BASSWOOD in the vicinity of Eniwetok, 
Kwajalein and Bikini Islands between 1952 and 1953.  


DECISION OF THE BOARD

The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), in accordance with 
the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 
1995), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and 
material of record in the veteran's claims file.  Based on 
its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for 
the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the 
Board that the preponderance of the evidence is against the 
claim of entitlement to service connection for multiple 
myeloma, asserted to be secondary to exposure to ionizing 
radiation.  


FINDINGS OF FACT

1.  All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable 
disposition of the veteran's claim has been obtained insofar 
as possible.  

2.  The veteran was not exposed to ionizing radiation during 
service.  


CONCLUSION OF LAW

Multiple myeloma, claimed as due to ionizing radiation, was 
not incurred in or aggravated by service.  38 U.S.C.A. 
§§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.311 (1996).  


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The veteran’s claim for service connection for multiple 
myeloma, asserted to be secondary to in-service exposure to 
ionizing radiation, is well-grounded within the meaning of 
38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).  That is, the Board finds 
that the veteran has presented a claim which is plausible.  
Post-service medical records showed the first diagnosis of 
multiple myeloma in 1988, approximately 10 years after the 
veteran’s discharge from active duty and 35 years since his 
alleged in-service exposure to ionizing radiation.  Multiple 
myeloma is listed as a “radiogenic disease” under 38 C.F.R. 
§ 3.311(b)(2) (1996).  

The Board is also satisfied that all relevant facts have been 
properly developed.  There is no indication of any 
outstanding pertinent records that could be obtained.  The RO 
has requested from various official sources verification of 
the veteran’s alleged in-service exposure to ionizing 
radiation.  Furthermore, in April 1996, the RO asked the 
veteran to submit names and addresses of “other seaman and . 
. . [his] superior officers who served with . . . [him] at 
the time” to obtain any relevant information regarding his 
potential exposure to ionizing radiation.  The veteran failed 
to respond to this request.  

As sufficient data exist to address the merits of the 
veteran’s claim, the Board concludes that the VA has 
adequately fulfilled its statutory duty to assist him in the 
development of his claim.  Consequently, no further 
assistance to the veteran is required to comply with the duty 
to assist mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a).  Murphy v. 
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990); Littke v. Derwinski, 
1 Vet.App. 90 (1990).  

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting 
from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.  
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991).

Throughout the current appeal, the veteran has claimed that 
he was exposed to radiation when he serviced buoys in the 
vicinity of Eniwetok, Kwajalein and Bikini Islands between 
1952 and 1953.  In January 1993, he claimed that he was 
assigned to the Coast Guard Cutter BASSWOOD from April 1952 
to October 1953; that, without written orders, his ship 
departed for Bikini Atoll in 1953; and that his ship 
patrolled the Atoll area for approximately 30 days.  He also 
contends that he was exposed to radiation as a result of the 
atomic bomb explosions at Bikini Atoll.  

The relevant regulation concerning service connection based 
on exposure to radiation requires that, in all claims in 
which it is established that a radiogenic disease first 
became manifest after service and was not manifest to a 
compensable degree within any applicable presumptive period 
as specified in § 3.307 or § 3.309 and in which it is 
contended the disease is a result of exposure to ionizing 
radiation in service, an assessment be made as to the size 
and nature of the radiation dose or doses.  38 C.F.R. 
§ 3.311(a) (1996).  Requests will be made for any available 
records concerning the veteran’s exposure to radiation.  
38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(2)(iii) (1996).  Review of the claims 
folder indicates that the RO has made numerous attempts to 
obtain verification of the veteran’s contention of in-service 
exposure to ionizing radiation.  The Board notes that the 
veteran does not qualify as a “radiation-exposed veteran” 
under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(d) for the purpose of service 
connection under that section.  

In July 1993, the RO asked the Commandant of the United 
States Coast Guard in Washington, D.C., to submit available 
evidence pertinent to the veteran’s claim.  The RO 
specifically explained that verification was needed as to 
whether the “CGC Basswood participated in, or was in the area 
of, atomic testing at Bikini Atoll during the period April 
28, 1952, to October 24, 1953.”  If so, the RO requested 
information regarding the types of duties that the ship’s 
personnel performed at that time.  

Personnel diaries and monthly personnel rosters of the Coast 
Guard Cutter BASSWOOD for the years of 1952 to 1953, which 
were received at the RO in August 1993, confirmed the 
veteran’s presence on the ship but failed to provide any 
evidence of exposure to ionizing radiation.  Additional 
correspondence received from the Coast Guard in September 
1993 demonstrated that, between April 1952 and October 1953, 
the BASSWOOD participated in several operations in the 
Marshall Islands.  Specifically, between February and April 
1953, the BASSWOOD conducted operations in the vicinity of 
Kwajalein Atoll, Eniwetok Atoll, and Majuro Island.  For the 
remainder of the referenced time period, the BASSWOOD 
operated “in and around the Hawaiian Islands chain.”  

The Coast Guard also explained that the BASSWOOD “was 
involved in servicing aids to navigation in these locations 
[Kwajalein Atoll, Eniwetok Atoll, and Majuro Island]” and 
that, “while transiting between Kwajalein and Eniwetok, . . . 
would have been about 70 miles to the southwest of Bikini 
Atoll.”  Significantly, the Coast Guard reported that no 
reference to involvement in atomic testing was found.  

Pursuant to the Board’s March 1996 remand, the RO made 
several additional attempts to verify the veteran’s alleged 
in-service exposure to ionizing radiation.  In April 1996, 
the RO requested a copy of the veteran’s Record of 
Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation (DD Form 1141), 
if maintained.  In July 1996, the National Personnel Records 
Center (NPRC) responded that this document, if maintained, 
would have been included with the veteran’s service medical 
records which had been forwarded to the RO at the time of the 
veteran’s separation from service in February 1978.  The NPRC 
suggested that the RO submit a separate request to the Coast 
Guard to obtain documents pertaining to the veteran’s Coast 
Guard service and included his service number.  

In August 1996, the RO contacted the Coast Guard.  In the 
following month, the Coast Guard responded that the “USCGC 
BASSWOOD (WAGL 388) did not service radioactive buoys in 1952 
to 1953, due to the project not being started until 1961 and 
ending in 1966.”  

In October 1996, the RO contacted a member of the Coast Guard 
who had worked on the Coast Guard’s September 1993 response.  
The RO again requested “any available records . . . [which 
would] verify that [the] veteran was exposed to radiation 
from the nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll while on board the 
CGC Basswood.”  The RO noted the veteran’s contention that 
“the buoys he service[d] during service on the Basswood were 
contaminated by, or contained some traces of radiation from 
the nuclear tests.”  In November 1996, the Coast Guard 
responded that it “was unable to provide any additional 
information regarding this case.”  

Clearly, the RO has made an exhaustive attempt to verify the 
veteran’s alleged in-service exposure to ionizing radiation.  
Significantly, however, all of these efforts resulted in 
responses to the effect that the veteran was not exposed to 
radiation.  

The applicable regulations provide that, when it is 
determined that a veteran was exposed to ionizing radiation 
as a result of participation in the atmospheric testing of 
nuclear weapons, the veteran subsequently developed a 
radiogenic disease such as multiple myeloma, and such disease 
first became manifest within the period specified in 
paragraph 3.311(b)(5), the claim must be referred to the 
Under Secretary for Benefits for further consideration prior 
to final adjudication.  38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b) (1996).  If any 
of these foregoing three requirements are not met, the 
determination must be made that a disease has not resulted 
from exposure to ionizing radiation under such circumstances.  
38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b)(1)(iii) (1996).  

As the RO determined in the present case, the records 
obtained fail to support the veteran’s contentions of 
in-service exposure to ionizing radiation.  All information 
obtained was to the effect that the veteran was not exposed 
to radiation during service.  Therefore, the finding must be 
made that the veteran’s multiple myeloma was not the result 
of radiation exposure.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b)(1)(iii) 
(1996).  The Board acknowledges the statement made by the 
veteran’s private physician in October 1992.  At that time, 
the physician explained that “although multiple myeloma 
usually occurs spontaneously without a history of antecedent 
radiation exposure, my feeling is that, if he did indeed 
receive a significant accidental exposure to ionizing 
radiation, a cause and effect relationship is a possibility.”  
Significantly, the physician’s conclusion was based solely on 
the veteran’s contention of in-service exposure to ionizing 
radiation.  The physician specifically stated that his 
opinion was based on the supposition that the veteran was 
actually exposed to ionizing radiation during service.  As 
the Board has discussed in this decision, however, evidence 
from official sources shows that the veteran’s duties and 
assignments did not involve risk of radiation exposure.  

The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for 
service connection for multiple myeloma, asserted to be 
secondary to exposure to ionizing radiation.  Consequently, 
the appeal must be denied.  


ORDER

Service connection for multiple myeloma, asserted to be 
secondary to exposure to ionizing radiation, is denied.  



		
	WILLIAM J. REDDY
	Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures 
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741 
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to 
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a 
determination.  This proceeding has been assigned to an 
individual member of the Board.

NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS:  Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 
1991 &  Supp. 1995), a decision of the Board of Veterans' 
Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, 
sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of 
Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of 
notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of 
Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board 
was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or 
after November 18, 1988.  Veterans' Judicial Review Act, 
Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (1988).  The 
date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes 
the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you 
have received is your notice of the action taken on your 
appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
- 2 -