KIDNEY DISEASE OF

Summary

The Veteran, a U.S. Navy Veteran who served from June 1962 to August 1966, appeals the denial of service connection for chronic kidney disease and myasthenia gravis. The Veteran claims these conditions are due to multiple toxic chemical exposures during service, citing extensive documentation of cleanup efforts at various Naval bases and military installations where he was stationed, including Connecticut, Iceland, San Diego, Norfolk, and Rota, Spain. The Board reviewed TERA Memoranda that noted possible exposures to industrial solvents, lead, fuels, CARC paint, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, volcanic debris, and asbestos. The Board found the Veteran's submitted documentation, combined with medical literature linking kidney damage to contaminated water and lead exposure, and autoimmune diseases like myasthenia gravis to toxic exposures, was sufficient to establish in-service incurrence and a nexus to his current conditions. The Board found the VA examiners' opinions inadequate, as they relied on speculation regarding exposure levels and failed to adequately address the Veteran's documented exposures and relevant medical literature. Consequently, the Board found the weight of the evidence supported service connection for both chronic kidney disease and myasthenia gravis. Service connection for chronic kidney disease is granted, and service connection for myasthenia gravis is granted.

Rationale

Current disability established; In-service incurrence established through documentation and medical literature; Nexus established by probative evidence and inadequate negative opinions

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26005107
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 17-19 418
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for chronic kidney disease is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for myasthenia gravis is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's chronic kidney disease is at least as likely as not due to his active service.

2. The Veteran's myasthenia gravis is at least as likely as not due to his active service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for chronic kidney disease have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for myasthenia gravis have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Navy from June 1962 to August 1966.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

In December 2024, the Board denied the Veteran's service connection claims for chronic kidney disease and myasthenia gravis.  The Veteran appealed this denial to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC or the Court), which granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) in October 2025.  Accordingly, the claim was returned to the Board for further adjudication.

In the JMR, the parties agreed that the Board erred in failing to ensure substantial compliance with its prior remand orders and directed the Board to remand the Veteran's claims to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to ensure compliance.  However, in light of the grant of service connection, the Board finds that remand is not necessary.  

1. Entitlement to service connection for chronic kidney disease

2. Entitlement to service connection for myasthenia gravis 

The Veteran maintains that his chronic kidney disease and myasthenia gravis were caused by his multiple chemical exposures during his active service.  After a thorough review of the record, the Board agrees and finds that the elements of service connection have been established for both disabilities.  

With respect to current disability, the Veteran has been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease and myasthenia gravis.  Thus, current disabilities for both conditions is established. 

With respect to in-service incurrence, the Veteran maintains that he was exposed to toxic chemicals at all the locations where he was stationed during active service.  These chemicals include but are not limited to the following: beryllium, benzene, non-ionizing radiation, microwaves, radio frequency, industrial solvents, lead, chemical agents resistant coating paint, sulfur dioxide, gases, and volcanic debris.  

The Veteran further asserted that millions of dollars were expended to clean up chemicals at locations where he was stationed.  In support of this contention, he cited to articles documenting the following: (1) cleanup of a 576-acre site at the Naval Submarine Base in Groton, Connecticut that was contaminated with DDT bricks, PCB, petroleum residue, and heavy metals in the 1960s; (2) the Dew Line Remediation Project, which included the military radar station in Iceland operating from 1957 to 1970 and contaminated with PCB, lead, and mercury; and (3) clean up at the Naval Training Center in San Diego of polluted soil and underground tanks storing benzene.  He also cited to articles documenting the use of beryllium at the Naval Bases in Norfolk, Virgina and Rota, Spain during his service.  He also cited articles documenting the toxic byproducts of the volcanic eruption at Surtsey Volcano in 1963, and contaminated water supply (including lead) in Rota, Spain during his service. 

The Board notes that Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) Memoranda on record document possible exposure to industrial solvents, lead, fuels, CARC paint, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, volcanic debris, and asbestos.  While the other claimed chemicals are not noted in these memoranda, the Veteran has submitted sufficient documentation to establish exposure.  Thus, the Board finds that the in-service incurrence element of this claim has been established.  

The remaining question is whether there is a nexus between
 Rota, Spain during his service.  He also cited articles documenting the toxic byproducts of the volcanic eruption at Surtsey Volcano in 1963, and contaminated water supply (including lead) in Rota, Spain during his service. 

The Board notes that Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) Memoranda on record document possible exposure to industrial solvents, lead, fuels, CARC paint, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, volcanic debris, and asbestos.  While the other claimed chemicals are not noted in these memoranda, the Veteran has submitted sufficient documentation to establish exposure.  Thus, the Board finds that the in-service incurrence element of this claim has been established.  

The remaining question is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's in-service incurrence and his current chronic kidney disease and myasthenia gravis.  The record only contains negative opinions addressing this question. 

With respect to chronic kidney disease, a VA examiner offered non-opinions in July 2022 and September 2024.  In July 2022, the examiner reasoned that a causative factor could not be established because the level of the Veteran's claimed toxic exposures could not be determined.  Similarly, the examiner reasoned in September 2024 that no evidence exists beyond pure speculation as to the Veteran's level of toxic exposures and its possible effects on his kidney function.  The examiner elaborated that there are other risk factors for kidney disease outside of military service, such as heredity, congenital, occupational, lifestyle, smoking, and obesity. 

These opinions are inadequate.  First, the examiners mostly suggested that an opinion was not possible without resort to speculation. They noted numerous other risk factors for chronic kidney disease, but did not identify whether any of them pertain to the Veteran specifically.  Second, the examiner's assertion that the level of toxic exposures the Veteran sustained during service could not be determined is without merit.  The Veteran has submitted substantial documentation noting widespread cleanup efforts at the locations where he was stationed during service.  This information provides strong evidence toward the level of exposure the Veteran had during his service.  Furthermore, the Veteran cited medical literature noting that long term kidney damage results form contaminated water and lead exposure.  The Board finds that this evidence is highly probative in establishing a nexus between chronic kidney disease and service. 

With respect to myasthenia gravis, a VA examiner again offered equivocal negative or non-opinions in August 2022 and September 2024.  In August 2022, the examiner reasoned that the etiology is unknown and no specific infectious, genetic, or toxic agent has been associated with it.  The examiner further reasoned that any causative connection between beryllium and myasthenia gravis would be pure speculation. Additionally, the examiner noted that there is no evidence that the Veteran's myasthenia gravis manifested during service, as he did not show any signs or symptoms of the condition until 2015.   This examiner further concluded in September 2024 that he could not opine on the etiology of myasthenia gravis without resorting to speculation because the cause is unknown.  

These opinions are inadequate.  Contrary to the examiners' vague and non-conclusive suggestions, the Veteran cited to medical literature noting that, "aside from genetics, most autoimmune diseases stem from environmental or lifestyle triggers... which include toxins such as chemicals or heavy metals."  Myasthenia gravis is an autoimmune disease, and while its specific cause is unknown, the medical literature supports a finding that it can be caused by toxic exposures. 

Given that there is no adequate negative opinion, the medical literature cited to by the Veteran, considered in combination with his extensive exposure to toxic chemicals, is probative in establishing a nexus.? See 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(a) (service connection must be considered on the basis of the places, types, and circumstances of his service as shown by his service records, the official history of each organization in which he served, his medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence); see also Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1335 ("[N]othing in the regulatory or statutory provisions [relating to evidence to be considered] require both medical and competent lay evidence; rather, they make clear that competent lay evidence can be sufficient in and of itself").

In sum, the weight of the evidence supports finding that the Veteran's chronic kidney disease and myasthenia gravis were incurred during his active service, and service connection is granted. 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b); 38?C.F.R. §§?3.102; 3.303(a), (d).

 

GAYLE STROMMEN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Beech
 at 1335 ("[N]othing in the regulatory or statutory provisions [relating to evidence to be considered] require both medical and competent lay evidence; rather, they make clear that competent lay evidence can be sufficient in and of itself").

In sum, the weight of the evidence supports finding that the Veteran's chronic kidney disease and myasthenia gravis were incurred during his active service, and service connection is granted. 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b); 38?C.F.R. §§?3.102; 3.303(a), (d).

 

GAYLE STROMMEN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Beech, Tara M.

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.