PROSTATE CANCER

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from June 1970 to October 1971, appeals the denial of service connection for prostate cancer. The Veteran claims his prostate cancer is due to Agent Orange exposure during service, specifically mentioning proximity to the DMZ in Korea as a medic. The February 2026 rating decision acknowledged the Veteran's prostate cancer diagnosis and conceded toxic exposure to various fuels and petroleum products. However, the Veteran's service treatment records were silent regarding prostate cancer complaints, treatment, or Agent Orange exposure. A comprehensive records research concluded that military records did not mention herbicide use or specific duties along the DMZ. Consequently, the Board found no presumption of Agent Orange exposure and insufficient evidence for direct causation. The Board also noted the prostate cancer diagnosis in 2026, over 55 years after service, did not support an in-service onset. A VA examination in January 2026 opined that the Veteran's prostate cancer was less likely than not related to his conceded toxic exposures, citing studies that did not associate prostate cancer with those specific exposures. The Board found this VA opinion highly probative. The Board concluded that the evidence weighed against a nexus to service, and the Veteran's lay opinion was not probative due to lack of medical expertise. Service connection for prostate cancer was denied.

Rationale

Service treatment records silent for prostate cancer and Agent Orange exposure.; Records research found no mention of herbicide use or specific duties near DMZ.; No presumption of Agent Orange exposure; direct causation not proven.; Late onset (2026) does not support in-service onset.; VA examiner opined less likely than not related to conceded toxic exposures.; VA opinion found highly probative; Board found persuasive weight against nexus.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26023541
Decision Date: 03/17/26	Archive Date: 03/17/26

DOCKET NO. 260220-627107
DATE: March 17, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

Prostate cancer did not have its onset in service, was not manifested within one year of service discharge, and is not otherwise related to service. The Veteran is not presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange during service, nor is he found to have been exposed on a facts found or direct basis.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309(a).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1970 to October 1971.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in February 2026 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.  

In the February 2026 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2026 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

The Board acknowledges the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024). In Williams v. McDonough, the Court held the Board must refrain from deciding a case until the case proceeds to the point where a docket switch is no longer permitted under the terms of 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(c)(2).  The deadline to request an Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) docket switch is one year from the date of notice of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision or 60 days from the date the VA Form 10182 was received by the Board whichever is later.  Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024).  Although less than one year has passed since the notice of the AOJ rating decision on appeal was issued, the Veteran's case is advanced on the docket (AOD).  In the interest of time and with consideration that the case is AOD, the Board will thus proceed to adjudicate this appeal avoiding further delay to the Veteran and without any prejudice to the Veteran.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for disability arising from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service; and (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

The following diseases are deemed associated with herbicide agent exposure under VA law: AL amyloidosis, Chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, Type 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes), Hodgkin's disease, Ischemic heart disease (including, but not limited to, acute, subacute, and old myocardial infarction; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (including
 injury or disease during service. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

The following diseases are deemed associated with herbicide agent exposure under VA law: AL amyloidosis, Chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, Type 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes), Hodgkin's disease, Ischemic heart disease (including, but not limited to, acute, subacute, and old myocardial infarction; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (including coronary spasm) and coronary bypass surgery; and stable, unstable and Prinzmetal's angina), all chronic B-cell leukemias (including, but not limited to, hairy-cell leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia), Multiple myeloma, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Parkinson's disease, early onset peripheral neuropathy, Porphyria cutanea tarda, Prostate cancer, Respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea), and Soft-tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma).  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e).

A veteran who, during active service, served between April 1, 1968, and August 31, 1971, in a unit that, as determined by the Department of Defense, operated in or near the Korean DMZ in an area in which herbicides are known to have been applied during that period, 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 that service. The term "herbicide agent" means a chemical in an herbicide, including Agent Orange, used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(iv).

Notwithstanding the foregoing presumption provisions for herbicide agent exposure, a claimant is not precluded from establishing service connection with proof of direct causation.  Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Ramey v. Gober, 120 F.3d 1239, 1247-48 (Fed. Cir. 1997), aff'g Ramey v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 40 (1996); Brock v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 155, 160-61 (1997).

1. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer

The Veteran contends that his prostate cancer is due to Agent Orange exposure during service.  See February 2026 Notice of Disagreement.  Specifically, the Veteran stated that his duties during service brought him to and from the DMZ.  See February 2026 Statement in Support of Claim.

The February 2026 rating decision made the following favorable findings: the Veteran has been diagnosed with prostate cancer and toxic exposure has been conceded (petroleum products fuel; JP4 fuel; JP5 fuel; diesel fuel; gasoline fuel; fuel fumes; JP4 fuel fumes; JP5 fuel fumes; diesel fuel fumes; gasoline fuel fumes; fuel spills/clean-up; exhaust fumes; engine oil; engine lubricating oil; other lubricating oils; petroleum greases; hydraulic fluids and fumes, engine coolant fluids and fumes; other toxic fluids and greases).

The Veteran's service treatment records are silent for complaints, treatment, or a diagnosis of prostate cancer.  Similarly, they are silent for any reports of Agent Orange exposure.

A professional researcher completed a comprehensive review of the Veteran's claimed exposure during his service in Korea.  See April 2025 Records Research Response.  The Veteran stated that his unit was in close proximity to the DMZ and he was deployed to camps close to the DMZ as part of his job duties as a medic.  The Veteran was stationed in Korea from December 1970 to February 1971. The researcher examined the unit histories and chronologies that the Veteran was assigned to.  The researcher concluded that the records do not mention the use or storage of herbicides.  In addition, the records do not mention or document any specific duties performed by the Veteran's unit along the DMZ.

Accordingly, the Veteran is not presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange during service, and, in this case, evidence must show that that
 April 2025 Records Research Response.  The Veteran stated that his unit was in close proximity to the DMZ and he was deployed to camps close to the DMZ as part of his job duties as a medic.  The Veteran was stationed in Korea from December 1970 to February 1971. The researcher examined the unit histories and chronologies that the Veteran was assigned to.  The researcher concluded that the records do not mention the use or storage of herbicides.  In addition, the records do not mention or document any specific duties performed by the Veteran's unit along the DMZ.

Accordingly, the Veteran is not presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange during service, and, in this case, evidence must show that that he was exposed to herbicide agents on a direct or facts found basis to establish presumptive service connection for prostate cancer.

The Veteran contends that he was exposed to herbicide agents when he was in close proximity to the DMZ as a medic, but there is no indication that his unit was near the DMZ or that his unit was near stored or transported Agent Orange.  The Veteran is also not competent to state that he was exposed to Agent Orange during service.  Competent lay evidence is that which the witness has actually observed and is within the realm of the Veteran's personal knowledge.  See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994) ("Personal knowledge is that which comes to the witness through the use of his senses - that which is heard, felt, seen, smelled, or tasted"). 

For these reasons, the Board finds that the persuasive weight of the evidence shows no exposure to herbicide agents during service.

Additionally, the evidence persuasively weighs against a nexus between the Veteran's prostate cancer and service.  The Veteran was not diagnosed with prostate cancer until 2026, which is more than 55 years after service, and does not lend to a finding that prostate cancer had its onset in service.

A VA opinion was obtained in January 2026.  The VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's prostate cancer was due to the Veteran's conceded exposure to petroleum products fuel; JP4 fuel; JP5 fuel; diesel fuel; gasoline fuel; fuel fumes; JP4 fuel fumes; JP5 fuel fumes; diesel fuel fumes; gasoline fuel fumes; fuel spills/clean-up; exhaust fumes; engine oil; engine lubricating oil; other lubricating oils; petroleum greases; hydraulic fluids and fumes, engine coolant fluids and fumes; other toxic fluids and greases.  The examiner explained that prostate cancer had not been shown to be associated with the toxic exposure the Veteran experienced.  The examiner cited several studies in support of her claim.

The Board finds the January 2026 VA opinion to be highly probative as it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data.  Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).

As to presumptive service connection for a chronic disease, the Board finds that the Veteran did not incur an event, injury, or disease related to his current prostate cancer in service and that his prostate cancer did not manifest during service or within one year of separation from service.  Furthermore, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran's symptoms have been continuous since separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a).  There were no complaints, diagnosis, or treatment for this disability for more than 55 years following service discharge until the Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2026.

While the Veteran alleges that the prostate cancer is related to his service, he is not competent to attribute the prostate cancer to service, as medical expertise is required.  In this regard, the question of causation involves a medical subject concerning an internal physical process extending beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship.  As such, the question of etiology in this case may not be competently addressed by lay evidence, and the Veteran's opinion is not probative evidence.  At the present time, there is no competent and probative evidence of a nexus between the prostate cancer and service, and the nexus element of a service-connection claim is not met.

Based on the foregoing, entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is denied.

(Continued on the next page)

?

In reaching the above conclusions the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine.  However, as there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the claim that doctrine is not applicable in this case.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102;
 by lay evidence, and the Veteran's opinion is not probative evidence.  At the present time, there is no competent and probative evidence of a nexus between the prostate cancer and service, and the nexus element of a service-connection claim is not met.

Based on the foregoing, entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is denied.

(Continued on the next page)

?

In reaching the above conclusions the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine.  However, as there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the claim that doctrine is not applicable in this case.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

 

 

David H. Robertson

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	L. Boyd, 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.