NON-HODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA

L. M. BARNARD · 2026 · Case ID: 26005082

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from July 1976 to July 1996, including service at Fort McClellan, Alabama, appeals the denial of service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, alleging it was due to in-service herbicide exposure. The Veteran's personnel records confirm multiple tours at Fort McClellan between 1976 and 1989. While the Veteran's service treatment records were silent regarding lymphoma, post-service records confirmed a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in January 2017, and the death certificate in November 2022 confirmed B-cell lymphoma. The Board found the Veteran's testimony regarding his service and exposures at Fort McClellan credible and consistent with his duties, and his service was verified. Although VA TERA memoranda and a private expert report indicated likely exposure to herbicides and other toxins at Fort McClellan, two VA medical opinions opined that the Veteran's lymphoma was less likely than not related to these exposures, citing a lack of direct evidence and the use of commercial herbicides. However, the Board found the evidence to be in equipoise regarding herbicide exposure, resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor and concluding exposure occurred. Given that non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is a presumptive condition under 38 U.S.C. § 1116 and the Veteran was found to have been exposed to herbicide agents, service connection was granted. The Board noted the Veteran's MOS as military police may have also led to asbestos exposure in Germany and Korea, but this was not directly linked to the lymphoma.

Rationale

Veteran served at Fort McClellan during periods of herbicide use/storage.; Board found evidence in equipoise regarding herbicide exposure.; Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is a presumptive condition for herbicide exposure.

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

20-00 240

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26005082
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 20-00 240
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, to include as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure, is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his active service at Ft. McClellan, Alabama, from August 1976 to November 1976, March 1985 to April 1985, January 1986 to May 1988, and September 1989 to December 1989.

2. The Veteran, prior to his death, had a confirmed diagnosis of B-cell lymphoma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, to include as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1976 to July 1996. On November 7, 2022, the Veteran passed away and the Appellant is his surviving spouse.

In September 2023 and April 2024, the Board remanded the claim on appeal for further development and adjudication. The Board finds that there was substantial compliance with its prior remand directives. A remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand order. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Nonetheless, it is only substantial compliance, rather than strict compliance, with the terms of a remand that is required. See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 104 (2008) (finding substantial compliance where an opinion was provided by a neurologist as opposed to an internal medicine specialist requested by the Board); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141 (1999).

Service Connection Claim

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Id.; also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) [(table)].

Where a Veteran served for at least 90 days during a period of war or after December 31, 1946, and manifests certain chronic diseases to a degree of 10 percent within one year, from the date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred or aggravated in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

Alternatively, when a disease at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a) is not shown to be chronic during service or the one-year presumptive period, service connection may also be established by showing continuity of symptomatology after service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b). However, the use of continuity of symptoms to establish service connection is limited only to those diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a) and does not apply to other disabilities which might be considered chronic from a medical standpoint. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Certain diseases may be service connected on a presumptive
38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a) is not shown to be chronic during service or the one-year presumptive period, service connection may also be established by showing continuity of symptomatology after service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b). However, the use of continuity of symptoms to establish service connection is limited only to those diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a) and does not apply to other disabilities which might be considered chronic from a medical standpoint. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Certain diseases may be service connected on a presumptive basis as due to exposure to herbicides, even though there is no record of such disease during service, if manifested in a Veteran who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam Era (or a Veteran who is otherwise shown to have been exposed to herbicides in service). 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 (a)(6), 3.309(e).

For purposes of establishing service connection for a disability resulting from exposure to an herbicide agent, a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, (or a Veteran who is otherwise shown to have been exposed), shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (f).

The diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e) shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, except that chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, and early-onset peripheral neuropathy shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(ii).

Notwithstanding the foregoing presumptions, a veteran is not precluded from establishing service connection with proof of direct causation. 38 U.S.C. § 1113 (b); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990).

Entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, to include as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure, is granted.

The Appellant, and the Veteran prior to his death, contends that the Veteran suffered from B-cell lymphoma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as a result of his active-duty service. Specifically, they allege that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his time stationed at Fort McClellan and that such exposures resulted in the Veteran's subsequent lymphoma.

The Veteran's service treatment records are silent as to any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of lymphoma. However, the Veteran's personnel records reflect that he was stationed at Fort McCellan from August 1976 to November 1976, March 1985 to April 1985, January 1986 to May 1988, and September 1989 to December 1989. Furthermore, in a December 2023 VA TERA Memorandum, the AOJ found that the Veteran had participated in TERA activities and was likely exposed to herbicide agents and other toxins at Fort McClellan. In addition, the AOJ indicated that as a result of the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) of military police, he was possibly exposed to asbestos while patrolling bases in Germany from 1988 to 1991. See December 2023 VA TERA Memorandum. Post-service treatment records reflect that the Veteran was diagnosed with lymphoma in January 2017. See January 2017 oncology report. Finally, the Veteran's death certificate issued in November 2022 confirmed that he had B-cell lymphoma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

In December 202
had participated in TERA activities and was likely exposed to herbicide agents and other toxins at Fort McClellan. In addition, the AOJ indicated that as a result of the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) of military police, he was possibly exposed to asbestos while patrolling bases in Germany from 1988 to 1991. See December 2023 VA TERA Memorandum. Post-service treatment records reflect that the Veteran was diagnosed with lymphoma in January 2017. See January 2017 oncology report. Finally, the Veteran's death certificate issued in November 2022 confirmed that he had B-cell lymphoma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

In December 2023 and August 2024, VA Medical Opinions were obtained postmortem in regard to the Veteran's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The December 2023 VA examiner confirmed that the Veteran was diagnosed with "stage IV low grade follicular lymphoma (grade 1/3) left tonsil (also B cell lymphoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma)." However, the December 2023 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was less likely than not due to his service and that it was less likely than not caused by or related to the total potential exposures through all applicable military deployments of the Veteran and the synergistic combined effect of all TERA of the Veteran. The examiner provided the rationale that the medical literature did "not support this cancer as a result of the Veteran's known exposures...The combination of these non-nexus substances does not give additional validity to causation." The August 2024 VA examiner also confirmed that the Veteran was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and found that it was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The August 2024 VA examiner opined that while the Veteran was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and that such "may be associated with various factors, including infections, environmental factors, immunodeficiency states, and chronic inflammation," and that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides and other toxins while stationed at Fort McClellan and potentially to asbestos while stationed in Germany and Korea, that the Veteran's lymphoma was not caused by or incurred as a result of such exposures. In regard to the Veteran's service at Fort McClellan, the examiner concluded that "there [was] no evidence to support that veterans stationed at Fort McClellan had [the] magnitude of exposure" required for the development of health concerns. Finally, in regard to the Veteran's potential exposure to asbestos in Germany and Korea, the examiner concluded that while asbestos was known to lead to benign pleural effusion, diffuse pleural fibrosis, and pleural plaques as well as lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma, there was no evidence that the Veteran had any asbestos related conditions.

Throughout the appeal, the Appellant and the Veteran, prior to his death, submitted statements indicating their belief that the Veteran was not only exposed to herbicide agents during his active service but that such caused his subsequent non- Hodgkin's lymphoma. Furthermore, the Appellant and her representative have submitted numerous articles not only detailing the chemicals and other toxins stored and used in and around Fort McClellan but also arguing that there is no distinction, either statute or VA regulation, between commercial herbicides and qualifying herbicide agents under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307.

Following a thorough review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, to include as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure, is warranted.

As an initial matter, the Board will address the issue of whether the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during his active service, specifically while stationed at Ft. McClellan in Alabama.

As previously noted, the Veteran's military personnel records reflect that he was stationed at Fort McClellan from August 1976 to November 1976, March 1985 to April 1985, January 1986 to May 1988, and September 1989 to December 1989.

In September 2017, the AOJ requested verification of the Veteran's allegations that he was exposed to herbicide agents while stationed at Fort McClellan and the nearby town of Anniston, Alabama, for the period from July 1976 to 1988. The AOJ further noted the Veteran's reference to the EPA's designation of Anniston Alabama as a Superfund Site due to PCBs and other contaminants. Subsequently, the AOJ was told that the Department of Defense (DoD) had provided Compensation Services with a listing of locations outside Vietnam and the Korean DMZ where Agent Orange was used, tested, or stored. Furthermore, the list did not contain names of individuals involved with Agent Orange and there were no references to routine base maintenance activities such as range management, brush clearing, and weed killing. Rather it was noted that such activities were accomplished with commercial herbicides on all military bases worldwide. Furthermore, it was noted that commercial herbicides did not fall under the regulations governing Agent Orange exposure at 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(i). In addition, the AOJ was informed that DoD had not identified Fort McClellan as a location where Agent Orange was used, tested, or stored, and there was no evidence of other claimed chemical exposures or evidence of long-term health effects associated with any such exposures. Rather all evidence showed that any herbicide use the claimant or others observed, or were associated with, was the commercial variety and not Agent Orange. Subsequently in October 2017, the AOJ issued an administrative decision, finding a lack of information required to corroborate the Veteran's described herbicide exposure.

In a January 2018 affidavit, the Veteran detailed the various times he was stationed at Fort McClellan and what his service entailed. The Veteran indicated that he was first stationed at Fort McClellan for Military Police Advanced Individual Training from August 1976 to November 1976 and then for the Military Police Basic Technical Non-Commissioned Officers Course from March 1985 to April 1985. The Veteran was again stationed at Fort McClellan from January 1986 to May 1988 as an active-duty Drill Sergeant, and finally from September 1989 to December 1989 for the Military Police Advanced Non-Commissioned Officers Course. The Veteran reported that while stationed at Fort McClellan, he was "very active at the Pelham Range." He was required to train with multiple weapons and various types of equipment as well as basic maneuvers training. In addition, the Veteran indicated that his duties took him "all around the post." He was required to march the perimeter, and "dug and spent numerous days in foxholes." In addition, he indicated that he drank, bathed, and cooked with the groundwater both on Fort McClellan and the Pelham Range. Furthermore, while the Veteran stated that he never participated in any defoliation, he was required to participate in grounds keeping, which included cutting weeds, mowing lawns, and trimming trees. He stated that "while working, I did notice various patches of brown and ultimately defoliated vegetation in the training areas." Finally, the Veteran stated that while stationed at Fort McClellan, he lived both on and off post. He indicated that he travelled into the town of Anniston, Alabama, on a daily basis. He reported that he spent time in Anniston to "relieve the stress of normal military life," and enjoyed fishing, hiking, swimming, and going to restaurants and bars in Anniston.

In September 2023 the AOJ requested additional research and development on the Veteran's allegation that he was exposed to herbicide agents, particularly in the ground and water while stationed at Fort McClellan. The Military Records Research Center noted that it requested records from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the custodian of Army unit records for 1976. However, NARA was unable to locate the 1976 unit history or operational reports for the Veteran's reported units. Furthermore, it was noted that a review of the unredacted 2019 DoD Tactical Herbicide Location list failed to verify exposure as claimed by the Veteran. Therefore, it was determined that no evidence was located that could support the Veteran's claimed exposure.

However, in December 2023, VA issued a TERA Memorandum which indicated that the Veteran was likely exposed to herbicide agents and other toxins while stationed at Fort McClellan near Anniston, Alabama. VA's finding was based on a September 2023 Anniston County Health Survey (ACHS) which found elevated levels of PCBs in ACHS participants. The article noted
1976 unit history or operational reports for the Veteran's reported units. Furthermore, it was noted that a review of the unredacted 2019 DoD Tactical Herbicide Location list failed to verify exposure as claimed by the Veteran. Therefore, it was determined that no evidence was located that could support the Veteran's claimed exposure.

However, in December 2023, VA issued a TERA Memorandum which indicated that the Veteran was likely exposed to herbicide agents and other toxins while stationed at Fort McClellan near Anniston, Alabama. VA's finding was based on a September 2023 Anniston County Health Survey (ACHS) which found elevated levels of PCBs in ACHS participants. The article noted that from 1929 to 1971 PCBs were manufactured at an industrial facility owned and operated by (after 1935) Monsanto Chemical Corporation. The article noted that release of PCBs into the air and water by volatilization, deposition into landfills, and migration into surface waters led to substantial environmental contamination, human exposure, and community health concerns.

Furthermore, in support of the claim the Appellant, and the Veteran prior to his death, submitted several articles demonstrating that herbicide agents were used at Fort McClellan from 1974 to 1976. In addition, they also submitted numerous articles and studies indicating that the toxicity levels had remained high even after the cessation of use, and that pesticides and numerous herbicides, to include various components of Agent Orange, were stored at Fort McClellan for "future disposal." The Board specifically notes a report titled "Likelihood of exposure to herbicide agents used in the Vietnam War by Veterans who served on Fort McClellan in Anniston, AL," authored by Hannah Mathers, Ph.D. Dr. Mathers is an environmental scientist and former Tenured, Full Professor in the Department of Horticulture and Crop Science at Ohio State University. In preparing her report, Dr. Mathers reviewed the Fort McClellan Environmental Baseline Survey and opined that "it is more likely than not; in fact, it is to a reasonable degree of certainty, that those serving and/or living near at FMTC (Fort McClellan) between 1974-1976 were exposed to the herbicide agents discussed herein the same ones used in Vietnam." The report specifically identified the chemicals 2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, and picloram, and compared the base supply orders and storage records to determine a minimum amount of each chemical used on base between 1974 and 1976. She concluded that those exposed at Fort McClellan "more likely received a greater exposure to the contaminants" than even those with Vietnam service, especially "anyone undergoing any kind of military training conducted outdoors." As rationale for this opinion, Dr. Mathers noted that "when comparing the total amount of active ingredients used of the herbicides in question, to the land mass in question, there was approximately 13.23 times more herbicides used on Fort McClellan than in Vietnam." She also explained how the herbicides were used at approximately "13 times their labelled rates." The Board finds this report highly persuasive as it is based on a review of primary sources as well as related literature and includes a rationale supported by the cited evidence.

In conclusion, the Board finds that the Veteran competently and credibly described his service at Fort McClellan and his claimed exposures were in keeping with his active-duty responsibilities. Furthermore, the Veteran's service was verified through his personnel records. In addition, the Appellant, the Veteran prior to his death, and their representative have submitted highly probative evidence in support of the contention that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his active service. Finally, while VA disputed both the type of herbicide exposure and the amount of exposure, exposure to herbicide agents was conceded by VA in the December 2023 TERA Memorandum. Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during his active service at Fort McClellan, and resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Appellant finds that the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during his active service.

As previously noted, the Appellant is seeking entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to include as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure. As the Board has found that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his active service, the question remaining before the Board is whether the Veteran's claimed disability began during or was caused by his active service, to include his in-service herbicide agent exposure.

As previously noted, certain diseases may be presumed to have been incurred in service for Veterans exposed to an herbicide agent if they become manifest to
service at Fort McClellan, and resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Appellant finds that the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during his active service.

As previously noted, certain diseases may be presumed to have been incurred in service for Veterans exposed to an herbicide agent if they become manifest to a degree of ten percent or more within the applicable presumptive period. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is a listed disease for purposes of presumptive service connection. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a), 3.309(e). Furthermore, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma may manifest at any time following exposure. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6).

As discussed above, the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his active service. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence clearly establishes that the Veteran suffered from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma prior to his death. The Veteran's post-service treatment records not only reflect such a diagnosis, but it was confirmed by the VA examiners in December 2023 and August 2024. See December 2023 and August 2024 VA Medical Opinions. Therefore, as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is a listed condition under § 3.309(e), and the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his active service, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is subject to presumptive service connection. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a), 3.309(e).

Accordingly, the Appellant's claim for entitlement to service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, to include as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure, is granted.

L. M. BARNARD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board J. Unger, 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer