PERIPHERAL NERVE DISORDERS

JENNIFER WHITE · 2026 · Case ID: A26032320

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran served in the Army from February 1965 to February 1968. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer, and seeks service connection for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, claimed as peripheral neuropathy, secondary to his service-connected lumbar spine disability. The Board granted service connection for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, finding it secondary to the service-connected lumbar spine disability based on the August 2024 VA examination. For type II diabetes mellitus, the Veteran claimed exposure to herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, while serving in Okinawa, Japan, as a stevedore with the 412th Transportation Company from August 1970 to April 1971. Despite the Veteran's testimony and some corroborating evidence of vehicle unloading from Vietnam, the Board found no documentation of herbicide exposure. VA's attempts to verify exposure through JSRRC and NARA were unsuccessful in locating relevant unit histories or evidence of herbicide use in Okinawa. The Board found the Veteran's lay assertions regarding exposure, particularly his inconsistent testimony about barrel colors and the location of dioxin contamination, to be not credible. The Board also noted that the presumption for herbicide exposure does not apply to Okinawa, and the Veteran's claims of service in Cambodia were unsubstantiated and inconsistent with service records. The Board found the evidence persuasively weighed against service connection for diabetes, denying the claim. Similarly, service connection for prostate cancer was denied due to lack of established in-service event or nexus, as the herbicide exposure presumption did not apply. The Board found no pre-decisional duty to assist error for failing to provide a VA examination for the prostate cancer claim, as the record did not demonstrate an in-service injury or disease other than the unsubstantiated herbicide exposure theory.

Rationale

Secondary service connection granted; Caused by service-connected lumbar spine disability; August 2024 VA examination confirmed nexus

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250501-537914

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26032320
Decision Date: 04/08/26 Archive Date: 04/08/26

DOCKET NO. 250501-537914
DATE: April 8, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy, claimed as peripheral neuropathy, is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy, claimed as peripheral neuropathy, is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence is in equipoise regarding a finding that the neurological symptoms claimed as bilateral lower extremity diabetic peripheral neuropathy have been diagnosed as radiculopathy that is caused by a service-connected lumbar spine disability.

2. The Veteran did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam or any other qualifying location such that herbicide exposure is conceded and he otherwise has not been shown to have been exposed to herbicide agents in service.

3. The evidence is persuasively weighted against finding that diagnosed type II diabetes mellitus is etiologically related to his active service.

4. The evidence is persuasively weighted against finding that diagnosed prostate cancer is etiologically related to his active service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.310.

2. The criteria for service connection for type II diabetes mellitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

3. The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had confirmed service from February 1965 to February 1968.

There matters were appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2025 rating decision through submission of an April 2025 VA Form 10182 with election of the hearing appeal docket.

A Board hearing was held on December 4, 2025 and a transcript of those proceedings are of record.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 2025 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[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 notes that the AOJ requested the Veteran submit any relevant private treatment records or submit information with which VA can assist the Veteran in obtaining private treatment records. Required notice and information were provided in the claim form which the Veteran signed, certifying to the fact that such notice was received and further than they have included or identified relevant evidence. VA requested records for which the Veteran submitted a proper release and/or adequately identified. The duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a Veteran desires help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Thus, the Board finds that VA has satisfied the duty to assist. No further notice or assistance to the Veteran is required to fulfill VA's duty to assist in
in obtaining private treatment records. Required notice and information were provided in the claim form which the Veteran signed, certifying to the fact that such notice was received and further than they have included or identified relevant evidence. VA requested records for which the Veteran submitted a proper release and/or adequately identified. The duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a Veteran desires help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Thus, the Board finds that VA has satisfied the duty to assist. No further notice or assistance to the Veteran is required to fulfill VA's duty to assist in development. Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227 (2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (2001); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002).

The standard set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (c)(2)(iii) only permits constructive receipt of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) records that not only existed prior to the issuance of the AOJ decision on appeal, but also for which the claimant furnished sufficient information to make the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) aware of the existence of those records. Thus, the Board's consideration of VHA records is limited to the same. Here, the Board finds that VA treatment records were obtained and reviewed consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (c)(2)(iii) and the AMA framework.

After receiving a November 2024 Supplemental Claim, the AOJ found that new and relevant evidence had been received and readjudicated these claims for service connection. The determination that new and relevant evidence has been received is a finding favorable to the claimant and is binding on the Board unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding. The claims on appeal have been characterized to reflect these favorable findings. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(c), 20.801(a).

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, service connection requires three elements: (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).

Diabetes and organic diseases of the nervous system are considered chronic diseases that will be presumed related to service if they were noted or diagnosed as chronic in service; or if they manifested to a compensable degree within one year after active duty discharge; or if chronicity or continuity of the same symptomatology has existed since service, with no intervening cause. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a).

VA will presume that a veteran was exposed to herbicide agents (including Agent Orange) if he or she served in the Republic of Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975; or in certain other specified locations, to include as expanded by the PACT Act. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6); Honoring our PACT Act of 2022, Pub. L. No 117-168, 136 Stat. 1759 (2022).

Where herbicide agent exposure is shown during service, type II diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer will be presumed related to such exposure if the condition manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service. Peripheral neuropathy will be presumed related to exposure to herbicide agents during active service if the condition manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year after the last exposure to herbicide agents. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e).

If the presumptive provisions are not met, service connection still may be established with proof of direct
. No 117-168, 136 Stat. 1759 (2022).

If the presumptive provisions are not met, service connection still may be established with proof of direct exposure or direct causation. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007).

Secondary service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability is proximately due to or the result of, or is aggravated beyond its natural progression, by service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

In adjudicating such claims, reasonable doubt that exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence concerning any point will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

1. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy

2. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy

Factual Background & Analysis

The Veteran seeks service connection for peripheral neuropathy in the bilateral lower extremities as due to in-service exposure to herbicide agents, to include Agent Orange, or as secondary to his diabetes. See November 2013 claim, July 2018 appellate brief. He has also stated that he moved "nerve gas" through Okinawa so that it could be shipped to another location. See November 2013 claim, February 2016 radiation reactivity activity information sheet (RRAIS).

Here, the Board recognizes that the Veteran has been diagnosed with bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy that is caused by his service-connected lumbar spine disability. See August 2024 VA back conditions examination.

With respect to the Veteran's claims for service connection for these neurological disabilities, the scope of a disability claim may include other disabilities that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant's description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other information of record. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009).

Consequently, claims for entitlement to service connection for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy have been identified as being with the scope of these claims for service connection for diabetic neuropathy. The evidence indicates, specifically the August 2024 VA medical examination, that these disabilities are caused by a service-connected lumbar spine disability. Therefore, the elements of secondary service connection have been met and these claims are granted on that basis. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

3. Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus

Factual Background & Analysis

The Veteran contends that he developed diabetes as a result of in-service exposure to herbicide agents, to include Agent Orange. See, e.g., June 2018 appellate brief.

A current disability is established, as VA and private records note diabetes mellitus. However, an in-service event and nexus to service are not established.

For the in-service event, the Veteran has reported that as part of his duties as a stevedore with the 412th Transportation Company in Okinawa, Japan, he unloaded retrograded trucks off "Transglobe" ships that came from Vietnam every 30 days for 13 months. He described the trucks as wrecked, damaged, exposed, or exploded, and stated that they were "contaminated" or covered in sand, dried up body material, and an "orange substance" that he believes was Agent Orange. See November 2013 claim (VA Form 21-526), January 2016 DRO hearing transcript, February 2016 radiation reactivity activity information sheet (RRAIS).

Service personnel records confirm the Veteran's military occupational specialties (MOS) of truck driver, heavy vehicle driver, and cargo handler; and that he served in Okinawa with the 412th Transportation Company from August 1970 to April 1971. See DD Form 214 and Record of Assignments. Service treatment records further reflect treatment at Naha port, which is in Okinawa. However, there is no documentation of exposure to herbicide agents, to include Agent Orange.

As a lay person, the Veteran's assertions of
Agent Orange. See November 2013 claim (VA Form 21-526), January 2016 DRO hearing transcript, February 2016 radiation reactivity activity information sheet (RRAIS).

As a lay person, the Veteran's assertions of exposure to gases or chemicals during service are not sufficient evidence alone to establish that such an event actually occurred. LeShore v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 406, 409 (1995); Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010). Although the Veteran is competent to describe what he experienced and witnessed in service, there is no evidence that he has specialized or scientific knowledge to render him competent to determine what, if any, chemicals or gases adhered to vehicles that were transported from Vietnam. Similarly, the Veteran is competent to describe his duties as a truck driver and cargo handler, but he is not competent to opine as to whether he was exposed to herbicide agents, to include from an "orange substance" on trucks from Vietnam.

The claims file includes a May 2010 memorandum (labeled as June 2014 VA memo) stating that a review of Department of Defense (DoD) documentation did not show any use, testing, or storage of tactical herbicides, such as Agent Orange, at any location on Okinawa. Additionally, recently acquired DoD monographs did not identify Okinawa as being associated with tactical herbicides. This memorandum is highly probative because it is based on official research.

As relevant to this case, this memorandum directs that, in cases where the claimed herbicide exposure location or dates are not on the DoD list or where the evidence does not otherwise indicate exposure, unless the claim is inherently incredible or clearly lacks merit, the AOJ should refer the case to the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for any information that this organization can provide to corroborate the claimed exposure. The AOJ should provide the veteran's military unit, location, dates at the location, military occupation, and any other relevant facts, as shown by actual military records.

Consistent with this memorandum, as noted in the prior Board denial, VA attempted to verify the Veteran's asserted herbicide agent exposure through requests in 2019 to what was known at the time as the JSRRC, based on the Veteran's indicated information. In an October 2019 response, the JSRRC indicated that it had coordinated with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which was unable to locate unit histories from the Veteran's unit and period of service in Okinawa: from 1970 to 1971 for the 412th Transportation Company or the 2nd Logistical Command. The JSRRC also indicated that it had reviewed an Operational Report - Lessons Learned (OR-LL) covering the period from August 1970 to October 1970, which was submitted by the 2nd Logistical Command, the higher headquarters of the 412th Transportation Company stationed in Okinawa. The OR-LL documented a decrease in turn-ins of items such as vehicles, trailers, and construction equipment through the retrograde program from Vietnam. The JSRRC stated, however, that the OR-LL did not document that any personnel were exposed to Agent Orange or tactical herbicides.

Similarly, in May 2022, two Records Research Responses reflect that a professional researcher from the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Office of Field Operations, Military Records Research Center, had completed comprehensive research on the Veteran's claimed herbicide exposure, based on correctly identified information. VBA had requested records from NARA, which was unable to locate the 1970 and 1971 unit histories for the 412th Transportation Company and their higher headquarters, 2nd Logistical Command. Thus, the conclusion was no evidence was located to support the claimed exposure.

An April 2019 response from NARA also noted that records were not found.

The November 2023 JMPR stated that it did not appear that VA had attempted to verify shipments into Okinawa from "Transglobe" ships, as reported by the Veteran, and, therefore, the prior denial provided inadequate reasons and bases in determining whether VA fulfilled its duty to assist. However, the notations in the OR-LL concerning involvement in the retrograde program from Vietnam corroborates the Veteran's report of unloading vehicles
the 1970 and 1971 unit histories for the 412th Transportation Company and their higher headquarters, 2nd Logistical Command. Thus, the conclusion was no evidence was located to support the claimed exposure.

An April 2019 response from NARA also noted that records were not found.

The November 2023 JMPR stated that it did not appear that VA had attempted to verify shipments into Okinawa from "Transglobe" ships, as reported by the Veteran, and, therefore, the prior denial provided inadequate reasons and bases in determining whether VA fulfilled its duty to assist. However, the notations in the OR-LL concerning involvement in the retrograde program from Vietnam corroborates the Veteran's report of unloading vehicles from Vietnam through the retrograde program in Okinawa. There is no need to attempt to verify whether such vehicles were transported to Okinawa specifically by "Transglobe" ships, as this would not provide any additional information with a reasonable possibility of assisting in substantiating the Veteran's claims. Accordingly, VA satisfied its duty to assist in attempting to verify the asserted in-service herbicide agent exposure.

Although transportation of retrograded vehicles from Vietnam to Okinawa is established, this is insufficient to demonstrate exposure to herbicide agents, to include Agent Orange, from any such vehicles or the transporting ships.

In May 2023, after the prior Board denial, the Veteran submitted a copy of a March 2017 article from "Stars and Stripes" discussing that two other veterans were previously granted claims of service connection based on findings under the facts in those cases that herbicide agent exposure was shown during service in Okinawa. Board decisions in other cases are not precedential or controlling in cases for other Veterans, and the situations in those cases were different than in this case.

The article noted that in one of the cases, an Air Force veteran was found to have herbicide agent exposure in Okinawa based on his reports of exposure to Agent Orange and other chemicals from being on the flight lines without protection. That veteran stated that chemicals were used to control vegetation in various places on Okinawa, and that he regularly inhaled and ingested chemicals. He also provided newspaper articles, testimony, and family research to support his claim. The Veteran in the present case has not asserted this type of exposure, nor has he provided any evidence other than these unrelated articles to support his claim.

For the other case where benefits were granted, the article noted that an Army veteran who served with the 412th Transportation Company in Okinawa asserted that he was exposed between October 1968 and May 1970 while serving at Naha military port, and Pentagon officials had indicated that unit records from 1968 to 1970 had been lost. This was the same unit as the Veteran in the present case, some of the dates overlap, and unit histories also were not available; however, the sample case involved a very different set of facts. The veteran in that case asserted that defoliant spilled on him while loading and unloading barrels from cargo ships. That veteran also submitted statements from fellow veterans who said that drums were shipped to Okinawa, they were offloaded and loaded onto other boats heading to Vietnam, and they often leaked. The Veterans Law Judge in that case found credible evidence of a reasonable probability of Agent Orange exposure from leaking barrels at the port in Okinawa. In the present case, there has been no such assertion of exposure or evidence in support.

Otherwise, the March 2017 article discussed potential evidence that large amounts of hazardous chemicals and waste coming back from Vietnam were stacked or buried in barrels at U.S. bases on Okinawa, which included "plant killers"; and those barrels began to leak into the soil and then to the sea over time. Cleanup began in 1973. However, the article also noted that no Agent Orange had been found in Okinawa, and a spokesperson for the U.S. Marine Corps and a Japanese official had stated that no suspected toxins or environmental contamination had been found despite continued testing every year since the 1970s.

In addition, a 2012 ecological assessment from Washington Group International titled "An Ecological Assessment of Johnston Atoll" was submitted in May 2024. The publication notes that in 1972 the U.S. Air Force brought about 25,000 55-gallon drums of Agent Orange to Johnston Island that originated from Vietnam and was stored on Okinawa. The Veteran recounted during the December 2025 Board hearing testimony that he had loaded and unloaded green barrels off of ships coming from Vietnam using retrograde vehicles. He went on to identify that the barrels had a "yellow stripe" on them after being asked directly by his representative.

As part of the November 2024 Supplemental Claim Application, an August 2014 letter authored by James B. Hecker, Brigadier General, USAF, Commander
Ecological Assessment of Johnston Atoll" was submitted in May 2024. The publication notes that in 1972 the U.S. Air Force brought about 25,000 55-gallon drums of Agent Orange to Johnston Island that originated from Vietnam and was stored on Okinawa. The Veteran recounted during the December 2025 Board hearing testimony that he had loaded and unloaded green barrels off of ships coming from Vietnam using retrograde vehicles. He went on to identify that the barrels had a "yellow stripe" on them after being asked directly by his representative.

As part of the November 2024 Supplemental Claim Application, an August 2014 letter authored by James B. Hecker, Brigadier General, USAF, Commander, 18th Wing was submitted. This letter indicates that an excavation of Okinawa City soccer field revealed soil samples contaminated by an agricultural herbicide (2, 4, 5-T and a byproduct of its manufacturing, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, was also detected. In addition, the herbicide 2,4-D was also detected but only in stagnant water on the site. The letter indicates that the dioxins were found in contaminated soil "at a depth where the local population would not have had direct contact." Further, the letter notes that test results show the substances from excavation area had not migrated off site. It also indicates that the soccer field storm water discharge is not used as drinking water and meets industrial wastewater standards. Testing of Kadena's drinking water revealed no contamination beyond normal levels. During the December 2025 Board hearing the Veteran testified that he had used this soccer field on Kadena Air Base which was adjacent to the Army base where he was stationed.

While the Veteran is competent to report his in-service activities and perceived exposures, the Board finds that the overall evidence does not support his contentions, and as such, that his unsubstantiated lay assertions concerning herbicide agent exposure, to include Agent Orange, is not credible evidence of actual direct exposure. Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010) (a layperson's assertions indicating exposure to gases or chemicals during service were not sufficient evidence alone to establish that such an event actually occurred during service). In that regard, the December 2025 Board hearing transcript reflects that the Veteran initially testified that he could not remember the color of barrels he loaded and unloaded from ships while stationed in Okinawa that he alleges came from Vietnam. It was only after being asked by his representative directly to affirm that the barrels had yellow stripes on them did he provide this evidence. Moreover, the August 2014 letter indicates that the dioxins that were found in contaminated soil were "at a depth where the local population would not have had direct contact." The Veteran's contention that he had been present at Okinawa City soccer field during service therefore does not substantiate that he was directly exposed to the herbicide agents that were found in contaminated soil samples at this location. Further, the March 2017 article again noted that no Agent Orange had been found in Okinawa, and a spokesperson for the U.S. Marine Corps and a Japanese official had stated that no suspected toxins or environmental contamination had been found despite continued testing every year since the 1970s. As such, and with consideration of the Veteran's lay testimony, the Board finds that the March 2017 article, 2012 ecological assessment and the August 2014 letter are not sufficient to support a finding of herbicide agent exposure, to include Agent Orange, in the present case.

The Veteran also stated in his March 2015 notice of disagreement that he had temporary duty travel to Cambodia but was stationed in Okinawa. However, a presumption for exposure to herbicide agents applies only for service in Cambodia at Mimot or Krek, Kampong Cham Province during the period from April 16, 1969 to April 30, 1969. See Honoring our PACT Act of 2022, Pub. L. No 117-168, 136 Stat. 1759 (2022). This was before the Veteran's service, to include in Okinawa, and he has not described actual herbicide exposure in Cambodia.

Moreover, the report of temporary duty is inconsistent with his military personnel records. His Record of Assignments shows foreign service only in Okinawa, and there are no orders for temporary duty in Cambodia. These contemporaneous official records are more probative than the Veteran's report decades after service. During the January 2016 Decision Review Officer (DRO) Hearing, the Veteran asserted only that he was exposed to herbicide agents while in Okinawa; he did not mention service in any other location. Therefore, the evidence does not establish eligible service in Cambodia for a presumption of exposure. The Veteran has not asserted that he served in
Veteran's service, to include in Okinawa, and he has not described actual herbicide exposure in Cambodia.

Moreover, the report of temporary duty is inconsistent with his military personnel records. His Record of Assignments shows foreign service only in Okinawa, and there are no orders for temporary duty in Cambodia. These contemporaneous official records are more probative than the Veteran's report decades after service. During the January 2016 Decision Review Officer (DRO) Hearing, the Veteran asserted only that he was exposed to herbicide agents while in Okinawa; he did not mention service in any other location. Therefore, the evidence does not establish eligible service in Cambodia for a presumption of exposure. The Veteran has not asserted that he served in another area with presumed herbicide agent exposure.

Direct service connection is not otherwise warranted. There is no argument or indication that the Veteran's diabetes or symptoms had an onset during service or manifested to a compensable degree within one year after service. Service records are negative for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of diabetes; and his December 1971 separation examination was normal. The Veteran testified during his January 2016 DRO hearing that he was diagnosed with diabetes in 2003. Similarly, in a September 2023 VA examination, the Veteran reported that in 2003 he started not feeling good, drank a lot of water and had weight gain. He was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and had received treatment since March 2003.

VA treatment records indicate that the Veteran was a new patient in 2014. The Veteran generally reported private primary care since 2005 or 2006. See February 2016 and April 2021 VA Forms 21-4142. However, only records from 2014 onwards were received from the providers in response to VA's requests for the identified dates of treatment. Thus, the duty to assist has been met in this regard, to include substantial compliance with the August 2018 Board remand directive for records.

Available records reflect treatment for type II diabetes mellitus. A June 2022 VA examination noted a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in 2014. However, the Veteran is competent to report when he sought treatment and what he was told by his providers, and there is no contrary information to show a diagnosis prior to 2003. Thus, the lay and medical evidence establish that the Veteran's diabetes did not have an onset of symptoms or diagnosis until decades after service, and the chronic disease presumption does not apply. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a).

There is no argument or indication of another potential nexus. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. As directed in the July 2018 Board remand, a VA examination was provided in June 2022. The examiner opined that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service because there was no confirmed herbicide agent exposure. This is consistent with the Board's findings. Similarly, in September 2023, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran's type II diabetes was less likely than not incurred in or caused by an in-service injury or disease, noting that he had service from 1970 to 1972. There is no contrary medical evidence, and no suggested in-service injury or disease other than herbicide agent exposure, which has not been shown. Thus, no further development is needed in this regard.

Based on the foregoing, the evidence is persuasively weighted against finding that service connection is warranted for type II diabetes mellitus and this claim must be denied. Because the evidence is not in approximate balance or "nearly equal" for and against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (2021).

4. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer

Factual Background & Analysis

A diagnosis of prostate cancer has been demonstrated based on VA medical records showing treatment and diagnosis for this disability. While the current disability element of service connection has been established, an in-service event and nexus to service are not established.

Because herbicide agent exposure is not established for the reasons discussed above under the analysis for type II diabetes, those presumptions do not apply. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(e), 3.309(a)(6).

There is no argument or indication of another potential nexus. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. There is no suggested in-service injury or disease other than herbicide agent exposure, which has not been shown.

Because herbicide agent exposure is not established for the reasons discussed above under the analysis for type II diabetes, those presumptions do not apply. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(e), 3.309(a)(6).

There is no argument or indication of another potential nexus. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. There is no suggested in-service injury or disease other than herbicide agent exposure, which has not been shown.

The Board recognizes that the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination in connection with this claim. The AOJ had no duty to obtain a VA examination and medical opinion in connection with this claim prior to issuing the January 2025 rating decision. At that time and as is still the case, the evidentiary record does not demonstrate any in-service injury or disease other than a presumptive theory of entitlement based on claimed in-service herbicide exposure. Thus, there was no pre-decisional duty to assist error by the AOJ for failure to provide a VA examination in connection with the claim for service connection for prostate cancer. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).

Based on the foregoing, the evidence is persuasively weighted against finding that service connection is warranted for prostate cancer and this claim must be denied. Because the evidence is not in approximate balance or "nearly equal" for and against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (2021).

Jennifer White

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Mckone, Kyle

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