PROSTATE CANCER

FREDERIC P. GALLUN · 2026 · Case ID: A26037922

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Navy from February 1966 to October 1969, appeals the denial of service connection for prostate cancer. The veteran contended that his prostate cancer was related to herbicide exposure, specifically Agent Orange, while serving aboard the USS Ticonderoga. He also noted probable asbestos exposure. The veteran's service treatment records did not indicate any complaints or diagnoses of prostate cancer during service; the earliest medical documentation was from 2011, over four decades after separation. A VA review of the USS Ticonderoga's command history found no travel within 12 nautical miles of Vietnam, and a December 2022 VA memorandum concluded no herbicide exposure could be substantiated, as the vessel did not meet the criteria for presumptive exposure under the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act. The veteran's claims of airborne exposure were deemed speculative. While a March 2023 VA TERA memorandum identified asbestos exposure, a July 2025 VA medical opinion concluded that prostate cancer is not a recognized cause of prostate cancer in the medical literature, citing studies showing inconsistent associations and methodological limitations. The examiner attributed the cancer to the veteran's advanced age. The Board found the evidence persuasively against service connection for prostate cancer, denying the claim.

Rationale

No in-service complaints or diagnosis of prostate cancer.; Earliest medical documentation over four decades after service.; No evidence of herbicide exposure (USS Ticonderoga did not meet BWN Act criteria).; Veteran's claims of airborne herbicide exposure deemed speculative.; Medical literature does not recognize asbestos as a cause of prostate cancer.; Prostate cancer most likely due to advanced age.

Service Branch

NAVY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250925-592542

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037922
Decision Date: 04/22/26 Archive Date: 04/22/26

DOCKET NO. 250925-592542
DATE: April 22, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's prostate cancer began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease, to include exposure to herbicides and/or asbestos.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from February1966 to October 1969. The Board recognizes the Veteran's service to our country, and the sacrifices it necessarily entailed.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2025 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

On the September 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on January 15, 2026, and a transcript of this hearing is of record.

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 his 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.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In general, service connection requires competent and credible evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

VA regulations provide that if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, the following diseases shall be service connected if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a) are met, even if there is no record of such disease during service: AL amyloidosis, chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne; type 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus); Hodgkin's disease; chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL); multiple myeloma; Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy; porphyria cutanea tarda; prostate cancer; respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx or trachea); soft tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma), chronic B-cell leukemias, Parkinson's disease, ischemic heart disease, parkinsonism, bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, hypertension, and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) shall have become manifest to
acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy; porphyria cutanea tarda; prostate cancer; respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx or trachea); soft tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma), chronic B-cell leukemias, Parkinson's disease, ischemic heart disease, parkinsonism, bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, hypertension, and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, except that chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, and early onset peripheral neuropathy shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii).

A veteran, who during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era 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 service. 39 U.S.C. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has held that the phrase "in the Republic of Vietnam" includes the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of Vietnam. Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (en banc). Thus, the presumption of exposure to herbicide agents now extends to veterans who served within that area, and they are entitled to presumptive service connection under 38 U.S.C. § 1116, so long as they meet the section's other requirements. This holding has been codified by the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019 (BWN Act).

Additionally, a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served between September 1, 1967, 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iv). In August 2022, the Sergeant First Class (SFC) Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act extended the presumption of herbicide exposure to veterans that served in Thailand at any United States or Royal Thai Air Base from January 9, 1962, to June 30, 1976; Laos from December 1, 1965, to September 30, 1969; Cambodia at Mimot or Krek, Kampong Cham Province from April 16, 1969, to April 30, 1969; Guam or American Samoa or the territorial waters thereof from January 9, 1962, to July 30, 1980; and Johnston Atoll or on a ship that called at Johnston Atoll from January 1, 1972, to September 30, 1977. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(d).

When herbicide exposure is not presumed, it must be determined that the Veteran was actually exposed to herbicides through verification from the appropriate service department or other sources for the presumption of service connection for a herbicide-related disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 to be applicable. Exposure to herbicides is not presumed in such instances, but exposure to one of the following herbicides: "2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD; cacodylic acid; and picloram," as listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 can still be established if shown by the facts of the case. Once exposure to herbicides has been established by the facts of the case, the presumption of service connection found in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 for herbicide-related diseases is applicable.

1. Ent
of service connection for a herbicide-related disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 to be applicable. Exposure to herbicides is not presumed in such instances, but exposure to one of the following herbicides: "2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD; cacodylic acid; and picloram," as listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 can still be established if shown by the facts of the case. Once exposure to herbicides has been established by the facts of the case, the presumption of service connection found in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 for herbicide-related diseases is applicable.

1. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for prostate cancer, which he contends is related to herbicide exposure. Specifically, the Veteran contends that he was exposed to Agent Orange while serving and working aboard the USS Ticonderoga. See Board Hearing Transcript (January 15, 2026); Board Hearing Transcript (October 2, 2023). The Veteran also has probable exposure to asbestos. See Military Personnel Record (March 10, 2023).

Private medical records show a history of prostate cancer. Therefore, at issue is whether this condition was incurred in or caused by the Veteran's active-duty service.

The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) do not show any complaints or diagnoses of prostate cancer. The earliest medical documentation of the Veteran's claimed disability is in 2011, more than four decades after his separation from service.

The Veteran alleges that he was exposed to herbicides while assigned to the USS Ticonderoga, from June 30, 1967, to October 21, 1969. However, a VA review of the USS Ticonderoga command history for the years from 1967 to 1969 reveals that the vessel did not travel within 12 nautical miles of the Republic of Vietnam. Indeed, the December 2022 VA herbicide exposure verification memorandum found that no exposure to herbicides of any kind can be substantiated, as the evidence does not show that the Veteran had duty or visitation to the Republic of Vietnam, or through its inland waterways, or nautical service in the offshore eligible waters as defined in the BWN Act. See VA Memo (December 22, 2022).

During his October 2023 and January 2026 Board hearings, the Veteran did not specifically disagree with these findings; instead, he testified to his belief that herbicides drifted farther than 12 nautical miles from the shore of Vietnam and suggested that aircraft flying from the ship to Vietnam and back again brought back "dust and particles" that he was exposed to, including when he was repairing landing cables on the flight deck. See Board Hearing Transcript (January 15, 2026); Board Hearing Transcript (October 2, 2023).

The Veteran's allegations of Agent Orange exposure because of air drift or transfer from aircraft are highly speculative and unsupported by any evidence. Accordingly, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is persuasively against finding that the Veteran had any herbicide exposure on this basis.

Additionally, as noted above, there is no probative evidence that the Veteran had service or visitation to the Republic of Vietnam, or through its inland waterways, or nautical service in the offshore eligible waters as defined in the BWN Act. For all the above reasons, the evidence does not establish the Veteran was presumptively or directly exposed to herbicides during his service, and presumptive service connection based on herbicide exposure is therefore not available. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). While prostate cancer is a presumptive condition for herbicide exposure, this theory of entitlement is not available as the Board finds herbicide exposure has not been established.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a claimant is not precluded from establishing service connection for a disability with proof of direct causation. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007).

A March 2023 VA Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) memorandum found that the Veteran participated in TERA during his service as a sheet-metal worker aboard the USS Ticonderoga based on exposure to asbestos. See Military Personnel Record (March 10, 2023).

In a July 2025 VA medical opinion, a VA examiner concluded that the Veteran's prostate cancer was less likely than not caused by his toxic exposure risk activities, to include asbestos exposure. The examiner explained that,

The medical evidence referenced from the
34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007).

The medical evidence referenced from the 2020 National Center for Biotechnology study states that asbestos could potentially lead to an increased risk of prostate cancer. This is a small cohort study and inaccurate. According to Open Evidence, Case- Control Study of Risk Factors for Prostate Cancer, asbestos exposure is not considered a well-established cause of prostate cancer. The most methodologically robust and recent systematic review and meta-analysis found no significant association between occupational asbestos exposure and prostate cancer incidence or mortality overall, with pooled standardized incidence and mortality ratios close to unity. Some subgroup analyses in this meta-analysis suggested slightly elevated risks in certain geographic or temporal cohorts, but these findings were not consistent and may be influenced by methodological limitations. Several large cohort and case-control studies have reported small increases in prostate cancer risk among asbestos-exposed populations, but these associations are inconsistent and often confounded by other occupational exposures or lifestyle factors. Earlier reviews and pooled analyses have generally concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support a causal relationship between asbestos exposure and prostate cancer. The strongest and most consistent associations between asbestos and malignancy remain with mesothelioma and lung cancer, not prostate cancer. In summary, while some studies have reported weak associations, the current consensus in the medical literature is that asbestos exposure is not a recognized cause of prostate cancer. See C&P Exam (uploaded July 14, 2025).

The examiner ultimately concluded that the Veteran's prostate cancer was most likely due to his advanced age. Id.

In conclusion, the probative evidence is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's prostate cancer had onset during service or was caused by or related to his service, to include exposure to herbicides or asbestos. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, as the evidence is persuasively against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54-56. The claim is denied.

Frederic P. Gallun

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board E. D. Anderson, 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer