MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the United States Marine Corps from June 1974 to August 1974, appeals the denial of service connection for coronary artery disease, status post myocardial infarction. The Veteran contended that the condition was due to contaminants at Parris Island Marine Corps Depot, specifically mentioning Agent Orange. The Board reviewed the evidence, including service treatment records, medical treatment records, and statements from the Veteran. Service treatment records did not indicate any in-service complaints, diagnosis, or treatment for a heart disability. Medical records showed a diagnosis of coronary artery disease in January 2000, with significant risk factors including a history of smoking, marijuana use, and a strong family history of heart disease. The Board noted that Agent Orange was not listed as a contaminant of concern at Parris Island and that VA stated commercial herbicides, not Agent Orange, were used for base maintenance. A VA examination in March 2020 concluded that the Veteran's coronary artery disease was less likely than not incurred due to service, citing the lack of literature supporting a link to Parris Island contaminants and the Veteran's multiple risk factors. A private medical opinion suggesting a link was given no probative value as it was based on inaccurate information regarding Agent Orange exposure. The Board found the evidence persuasively weighed against a service connection, denying the claim.

Rationale

No in-service complaints, diagnosis, or treatment for heart disability in service treatment records.; Diagnosis of coronary artery disease in January 2000 with significant risk factors (smoking, marijuana use, family history).; VA examination concluded less likely than not incurred due to service, citing lack of literature link to Parris Island contaminants and Veteran's risk factors.; Private medical opinion based on inaccurate Agent Orange exposure information was given no probative value.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26032185
Decision Date: 04/08/26	Archive Date: 04/08/26

DOCKET NO. 210525-162069
DATE: April 8, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, status post myocardial infarction, is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's coronary artery disease, status post myocardial infarction, began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, status post myocardial infarction, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from June 1974 to August 1974.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2021 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) under the modernized review system, or Appeals Modernization Act (AMA).

In the October 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on October 25, 2024.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 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, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, status post myocardial infarction, is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for coronary artery disease that he contends was due to contaminants at Parris Island Marine Corps Depot. See May 2019 VA Form 526EZ, Fully Developed Claim.

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When a Veteran seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the Veteran prevails. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

In the March 2021 rating decision, the AOJ made the favorable findings that the Veteran has a diagnosed coronary artery disease disability. The Board is bound by this favorable finding.

Therefore, the remaining questions before the Board are whether there was an in-service incurrence or aggravation of the disease or injury and whether there is a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury.

Service treatment records show no
, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

In the March 2021 rating decision, the AOJ made the favorable findings that the Veteran has a diagnosed coronary artery disease disability. The Board is bound by this favorable finding.

Therefore, the remaining questions before the Board are whether there was an in-service incurrence or aggravation of the disease or injury and whether there is a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury.

Service treatment records show no complaints, diagnosis, or treatment of a heart disability. See Service Treatment Records.

Medical treatment records show that the Veteran was diagnosed with coronary artery disease in January 2000. The Veteran had a history of tobacco and marijuana use and a strong family history of coronary artery disease. When the Veteran was in service, he stated his mother had serious heart problems. See Medical Treatment Records 1 and 2 and Military Personnel Records.

The Veteran submitted an information sheet on different contaminants of concern at Parris Island. However, trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, commonly known as Agent Orange, was not on the list. See Correspondence.

The Veteran had an herbicide examination in September 2015. The Veteran stated he was unsure if he was involved in handling or spraying Agent Orange. See September 2015 Examination.

The Veteran submitted a statement in support of his claim. He stated that he had several physical issues that had unknown causes. He stated several of the conditions were presumptive to Agent Orange exposure; however, he did not serve in Vietnam. The Veteran stated he worked on Parris Island cleaning piers and warehouse storage areas where chemicals were potentially stored. See February 2020 Statement.

VA stated that routine base maintenance activities such as range management, brush clearing, and weed killing was done with commercial herbicides, not Agent Orange. See Correspondence. 

The Veteran was provided a VA examination in March 2020. The examiner opined that the Veteran's coronary artery disease was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness because current literature did not support a link between coronary artery disease and contaminants of concern at Parris Island. The examiner noted that the Veteran was diagnosed with coronary artery disease in 2001, approximately 27 years after his release from service. Further, the Veteran had an extensive history of cigarette smoking and marijuana use that was noted in his cardiologist's progress notes as a risk factor involved with the development and continuation of progression of coronary artery disease. See March 2020 Disability Benefits Questionnaire.

The Veteran provided a private medical opinion dated January 2025. The physician opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's coronary artery disease was due to his service. The examiner stated that his opinion was based on the documented Agent Orange exposure, the fact that Agent Orange exposure is strongly associated with the later onset of coronary artery disease, and the lack of other risk factors for coronary artery disease. However, the Veteran does not have confirmed herbicide exposure, and the Veteran has multiple other risk factors for coronary artery disease. Since this opinion was based on inaccurate information, the Board assigns it no probative value. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 460-61 (1993) (holding a medical opinion based on an inaccurate factual premise has no probative value). See Medical Opinion of Dr. G.S.

The Veteran attended a Board hearing in October 2024. The Veteran testified that he was out in the grass on the island and it was sprayed with Agent Orange to kill the bugs. The Veteran stated that he began having problems with his heart about two years after service. See October 2024 Hearing Transcript.

There is no evidence that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides, specifically Agent Orange. The Veteran stated he worked on Parris Island, and he did not know what chemicals were stored there. The Veteran testified that Agent Orange was used to kill the bugs where he was working; however, Agent Orange is not a bug killer nor was there any evidence it was used as an herbicide on Parris Island. Additionally, the Veteran had strong risk factors for coronary artery disease, including a family history and a history of smoking.

For the reasons provided above, the Board finds the probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's coronary artery disease began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service event, injury, or disease. Accordingly, entitlement to service for connection coronary artery disease is not warranted, and the appeal is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F
 Agent Orange was used to kill the bugs where he was working; however, Agent Orange is not a bug killer nor was there any evidence it was used as an herbicide on Parris Island. Additionally, the Veteran had strong risk factors for coronary artery disease, including a family history and a history of smoking.

For the reasons provided above, the Board finds the probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's coronary artery disease began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service event, injury, or disease. Accordingly, entitlement to service for connection coronary artery disease is not warranted, and the appeal is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

 

 

T. Raymond

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Ho, Ashley 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.