MULTIPLE MYELOMA

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Army from August 1968 to October 1972, appeals the denial of service connection for multiple myeloma, diabetes mellitus II, and coronary artery disease (CAD). The veteran contends these conditions are due to herbicide exposure during service, specifically during a tour at Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa and a temporary assignment in Vietnam. The Board reviewed the evidence, including the veteran's service records, VA examinations, a sibling's statement, a TERA article about herbicides in Okinawa, and the veteran's own affidavit and hearing testimony. While the veteran's service treatment records showed no in-service treatment for these conditions, the Board found the veteran's statements regarding his service in Okinawa and Vietnam to be competent and credible, assigning them substantial probative weight. An article detailing herbicide presence and detection of dioxins at Kadena Air Force Base, along with the veteran's account of working on aircraft returning from Vietnam, led the Board to find it more likely than not that the veteran was exposed to herbicide agents in Okinawa. Affording the veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board also found his credible statements regarding Vietnam service sufficient to support a finding of herbicide exposure there. As multiple myeloma, diabetes mellitus II, and CAD are presumptive conditions based on herbicide exposure, service connection was granted for all three conditions. The appeal was granted.

Rationale

Veteran diagnosed with multiple myeloma.; Claimed exposure to herbicides in Okinawa and Vietnam.; Veteran's statements found credible and probative.; Board found more likely than not exposed to herbicides in Okinawa.; Benefit of doubt applied for Vietnam service.; Multiple myeloma is a presumptive condition based on herbicide exposure.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26035819
Decision Date: 04/16/26	Archive Date: 04/16/26

DOCKET NO. 250731-560730
DATE: April 16, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for multiple myeloma is granted.

Service connection for diabetes mellitus II is granted.

Service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD), claimed as heart disease, is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence is at least in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran's multiple myeloma was caused or aggravated by his service. 

2. The evidence is at least in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran's diabetes mellitus II was caused or aggravated by his service. 

3. The evidence is at least in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran's CAD was caused or aggravated by his service. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for multiple myeloma have been met. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus II have been met. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for CAD have been met.  8 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1968 to October 1972.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in July 2025 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In the July 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On December 3, 2025, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

These matters were before the Board and Remanded in May 2025. The Board finds that the AOJ substantially complied with the single Remand directive and the post-Remand record shows that the regional office (RO) made attempts to verify the Veteran's contended in-service herbicide exposure through the Records Research Center. The RO requested further information from the Veteran to no avail. The RO issued the July 2025 decision on appeal, which served as a formal finding that the Veteran's herbicide exposure could not be verified by official records.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97 (2008) (holding that only substantial, and not strict compliance with the terms of a remand request, is required).

This appeal is advanced on the docket in recognition of the Veteran's advanced age. 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c).

Service Connection

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service.  38?U.S.C. §?1110; 38?C.F.R. §?3.303.  

The Veteran contends his multiple myeloma, diabetes
. 97 (2008) (holding that only substantial, and not strict compliance with the terms of a remand request, is required).

This appeal is advanced on the docket in recognition of the Veteran's advanced age. 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c).

Service Connection

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service.  38?U.S.C. §?1110; 38?C.F.R. §?3.303.  

The Veteran contends his multiple myeloma, diabetes mellitus II, and heart disease are due to herbicide exposure during his service.  See July 2025 Notice of Disagreement. 

The Veteran's enlistment examination reports normal results. His service treatment record reports no treatment for or diagnosis of multiple myeloma, diabetes mellitus II, or heart disease. 

The Veteran has current diagnoses of multiple myeloma, diabetes mellitus II, and CAD.  See September 2024 VA Examinations. 

The key inquiry is whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents in service.   

The Veteran contends he was exposed to herbicide agents during a short assignment in Vietnam and during his tour of duty at Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa.  See March 2025 Hearing Transcript. 

The Veteran's service as an aircraft maintenance crew chief in Okinawa is documented in his service record. His service in Vietnam could not be confirmed by official records. 

In a September 2023 Correspondence-sibling statement, the Veteran's sister, "R.B.," stated she remembered getting letters from the Veteran while he was in Vietnam. She stated that the letters included Vietnamese words the Veteran had learned in Vietnam. The Board finds this statement credible and competent as they relate to the personal experiences described by R.B. 

An August 2024 Correspondence-Okinawa TERA article reports that herbicides were stored at the U.S. Army's Machinato Service Area, Urasoe City, Okinawa. The article, which cited official statements, reported that the base accepted "retrograde shipments from Vietnam, including herbicides during the 1960s and 1970s. Additionally, that a high level of dioxin's found in herbicide agents were detected in the soil in 1975. The article also reported that more than 100 barrels of toxic chemicals had been found on land that was formally part of Kadena Air Force Base.

In an August 2024 Affidavit, the Veteran reported that, "in October of 1969 as crew chief of my maintenance unit, I received orders to fly to Vietnam to assist in a mission. I recall the mission occurred at the same time as the Tet Offensive." He stated that he believed there was a shortage of aircraft maintenance personnel in Vietnam and that 2 other maintenance crew chiefs went with him. He reported that he was assigned to Tan Son Nhut Air Base for one week and then flew back to Kadena Air Force Based in Okinawa where he was permanently assigned.  See March 2025 Hearing Transcript. The Veteran also stated that he was exposed to herbicide agents while service in Okinawa as a large number of aircraft he worked on arrived directly from missions within Vietnam.  Id. The Board finds the Veteran's statements competent and credible as they relate to his personal experiences both in Okinawa and during his service in Vietnam. The Board assigns these statements substantial probative weight. 

During the Veteran's March 2025 Board hearing the Veteran's representative noted that at the time of the hearing the disposal of toxic waste at Kadena Air Force Base was in the news due to contaminated water and the buried toxic waste recently found there. The representative again noted that the Veteran was in close contact with aircraft that flew to Kadena directly from Vietnam. 

May and June 2025 Records Research Center Responses report that the Veteran's contended herbicide exposure could not be verified and that VA had no evidence which supported that the Veteran could have been exposure to herbicide agents when working on aircraft that had flown to Okinawa from Vietnam.  

(Continued on the next page)

?

However, the August 2024 Correspondence--Okinawa TERA article provides numerous sources of evidence that herbicides were present in Okinawa during the Veteran's service there. It is unknown whether herbicides arrived in Okinawa by air or sea, but it is likely that at least some of the retro-grade herbicide shipments arrived by air. Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that he was more likely than not exposed to herbicide agents during his tour of duty in Okinawa. Regarding his
 VA had no evidence which supported that the Veteran could have been exposure to herbicide agents when working on aircraft that had flown to Okinawa from Vietnam.  

(Continued on the next page)

?

However, the August 2024 Correspondence--Okinawa TERA article provides numerous sources of evidence that herbicides were present in Okinawa during the Veteran's service there. It is unknown whether herbicides arrived in Okinawa by air or sea, but it is likely that at least some of the retro-grade herbicide shipments arrived by air. Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that he was more likely than not exposed to herbicide agents during his tour of duty in Okinawa. Regarding his service in Vietnam, it is unlikely that records of individuals serving in a temporary capacity in Vietnam could be found if in fact the records were retained. As the Board has found the Veteran's statements regarding his Vietnam service to be competent and credible, his service in Vietnam also supports a finding of herbicide exposure.

Multiple myeloma, diabetes mellitus II, and CAD are presumptive conditions based on in-service exposure to herbicide agents. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e).  As the Veteran is currently diagnosed with multiple myeloma, diabetes mellitus II, and CAD, see September 2024 VA examination, service connection is warranted for multiple myeloma, diabetes mellitus II, and CAD based on the Veteran's in-service exposure to herbicide agents. The appeal is granted.

 

 

JIMMY L. BARDIN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Danilowicz, B.

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.