MALIGNANT SKIN NEOPLASMS (OTHER THAN MALIGNANT MELANOMA)

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from October 1967 to November 1970, had malignant melanoma diagnosed. His surviving spouse pursued the claim for accrued benefits after his death in June 2022. The appeal concerned service connection for malignant melanoma, with claims focusing on potential links to sun exposure and conceded herbicide exposure during service in Vietnam. The Board acknowledged the current diagnosis and the concession of herbicide exposure, but found the evidence weighed against a service connection. The Veteran's oncologist provided an opinion linking the melanoma to sun exposure and herbicide exposure, but failed to provide a specific rationale for the herbicide link and noted significant sun exposure history. The Board found the oncologist's opinion lacked probative value due to insufficient rationale. The Board also noted that malignant melanoma is not a presumptive condition for herbicide exposure under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). While acknowledging the duty to provide a VA examination when evidence suggests a link to service, the Board found no such competent evidence existed prior to the decision under appeal. Consequently, service connection for malignant melanoma was denied.

Rationale

No probative evidence of nexus to service, including herbicide exposure.; Oncologist's opinion lacked specific rationale linking melanoma to herbicide exposure.; Melanoma is not a presumptive condition for herbicide exposure.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26035812
Decision Date: 04/16/26	Archive Date: 04/16/26

DOCKET NO. 220114-258590
DATE: April 16, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for malignant melanoma is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's malignant melanoma did not manifest during service nor is it otherwise attributable to service, including his conceded exposure to herbicide agents.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for malignant melanoma have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from October 1967 to November 1970.

The Veteran died in June 2022.  The Appellant is the Veteran's surviving spouse, who has been substituted for the Veteran to process the service connection claim that was pending at the time of his death to completion for the purpose of accrued benefits.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5121A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2021 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the January 14, 2022, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on July 10, 2025.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Appellant 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 Appellant would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Appellant 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. 

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c).

Entitlement to service connection for malignant melanoma is denied.

Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  The evidence must show (1) the existence of a current disability, (2) an 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).

For purposes of establishing service connection for a disability resulting from exposure to herbicide agents, a veteran who had active service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam Era, beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, will be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent during that service, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service.  38 U.S.C. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a), 3.309(e). 

The applicable criteria provide that a disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents, listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), will be considered to have been incurred in service under the circumstances outlined in this section even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a).   As malignant melanoma is not
 to have been exposed to an herbicide agent during that service, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service.  38 U.S.C. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a), 3.309(e). 

The applicable criteria provide that a disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents, listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), will be considered to have been incurred in service under the circumstances outlined in this section even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a).   As malignant melanoma is not listed among the diseases enumerated under 38?C.F.R. §§?3.309(e), the herbicide agents' presumptive provision of 38?C.F.R. §?3.307 does not apply.

Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that a claimant who suffers from a disability that is not listed among those for which presumptive service is afforded based on exposure to herbicide agents is not precluded from establishing service connection for such disability as due to herbicide agent exposure with proof of direct causation.  Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

As an initial matter, the AOJ has conceded the presence of a current disability with respect to the Veteran's service connection claim for malignant melanoma.  This favorable finding is binding on the Board.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).  During the July 2025 Board hearing, the Appellant and her representative asserted that the Veteran's melanoma is the result of sun exposure or herbicide exposure during his service in the Republic of Vietnam.  Moreover, a July 2024 TERA Memorandum shows the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service.  Id.  Thus, the only issue that remains is whether the Veteran's melanoma is related to service, including his exposure to herbicides and sun.

Upon review of the record, the Board concludes that, although the Veteran has a current diagnosis of malignant melanoma, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the disability is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

At issue is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's malignant melanoma and his active service.  In this case, Appellant has not asserted that the Veteran's melanoma began during service.  Additionally, there is no probative evidence of a nexus between the Veteran's melanoma and service, including his exposure to herbicides during service in the Republic of Vietnam.

Following the July 2025 Board hearing, the Appellant submitted private treatment records and an opinion from the Veteran's oncologist attempting to link his melanoma to service.  Regarding the private treatment records, it was noted that the Veteran had significant sun exposure when he was younger and the Appellant indicated that the Veteran was frequently shirtless during his service in Vietnam.  The oncologist explained that melanoma is a malignant skin cancer and is highly associated with previous sun exposure; however, she did not specifically link the Veteran's melanoma to his sun exposure during service.  Moreover, the oncologist failed to provide a rationale in support of her opinion that the Veteran's melanoma could be related to his agent orange exposure.  As such, the Board affords the oncologist's opinion no probative value.

Finally, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination on this issue.  VA is obliged to provide an examination where there is insufficient information to decide the claim and there is an indication the current disability may be associated with service.  See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).  However, the Board finds that VA did not have a duty to provide the Veteran with a VA examination as prior to the September 2021 decision on appeal as there was no competent evidence suggesting that the Veteran's melanoma was related to any alleged in-service event.

Based on the foregoing, as the evidence is persuasively against finding that the Veteran's melanoma is related to service, entitlement to service connection for malignant melanoma is denied.  In reaching the above conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine; however, as the competing evidence is not in approximate balance, the doctrine is not for application.  See 38 U.S.C.
20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).  However, the Board finds that VA did not have a duty to provide the Veteran with a VA examination as prior to the September 2021 decision on appeal as there was no competent evidence suggesting that the Veteran's melanoma was related to any alleged in-service event.

Based on the foregoing, as the evidence is persuasively against finding that the Veteran's melanoma is related to service, entitlement to service connection for malignant melanoma is denied.  In reaching the above conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine; however, as the competing evidence is not in approximate balance, the doctrine is not for application.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

 

 

M. HYLAND

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Lance, 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.