TUBERCULOSIS PULMONARY CHRONIC

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from December 1968 to September 1970, appeals the denial of service connection for pulmonary fibrosis. The Veteran contends his condition is due to herbicide agent exposure during service. The Board reviewed the evidence, including the Veteran's January 2023 application and August 2025 supplemental claim, which cited a private physician's opinion. The VA examination in July 2023 confirmed the pulmonary fibrosis diagnosis but opined it was less likely than not caused by herbicide exposure. However, the Veteran submitted a private medical opinion from his treating physician, dated August 2025, who reviewed the Veteran's history and service records. This physician opined that the pulmonary fibrosis is more than likely a direct result of herbicide agent exposure during service. The Board found the private opinion adequate and probative, accordinging it significant weight. The Board determined the evidence was in relative equipoise regarding the nexus between pulmonary fibrosis and herbicide exposure. Applying the benefit of the doubt, the Board found the Veteran's pulmonary fibrosis was caused by his in-service exposure to herbicide agents. Service connection for pulmonary fibrosis is granted.

Rationale

Veteran served in the Army from December 1968 to September 1970.; Veteran has a current diagnosis of pulmonary fibrosis.; Veteran contends condition is due to herbicide exposure during service.; VA examination opined less likely than not caused by herbicide exposure.; Private physician opined more than likely a direct result of herbicide exposure.; Board found private opinion adequate and probative.; Evidence in relative equipoise regarding nexus to herbicide exposure.; Benefit of the doubt applied to grant service connection.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039590
Decision Date: 04/28/26	Archive Date: 04/28/26

DOCKET NO. 251029-606178
DATE: April 28, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for pulmonary fibrosis is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's pulmonary fibrosis is related to in-service exposure to herbicide agents.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for pulmonary fibrosis have 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 in the United States Army from December 1968 to September 1970.

As an initial matter, in Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held the Board should not adjudicate an appeal until the time for the appellant to switch Board dockets has ended. This period ends either one year from the date the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) mailed notice of the decision on appeal, or 60 days from the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, whichever date is later. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(c)(2). Here, the Board may proceed with adjudication because a docket switch is not possible as the Veteran already had a Board hearing. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202(c)(2), 20.302.

In the December 28, 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on April 27, 2026.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2025 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran 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 pulmonary fibrosis is granted.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for pulmonary fibrosis. The Veteran contends his condition is due to exposure to herbicide agents during service. See January 2023 Application for Disability Compensation; August 2025 Supplemental Claim.

Service connection may be granted for a 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).

In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). Likewise, the Board must assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence, which it finds to be more persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Equal weight is not afforded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; not every item of evidence has the same probative value.

When there is an approximate balance
 See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). Likewise, the Board must assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence, which it finds to be more persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Equal weight is not afforded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; not every item of evidence has the same probative value.

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 the issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).

The Board acknowledges the favorable findings in the September 2024 rating decision that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of pulmonary fibrosis and was exposed to herbicide agents during service. The remaining question before the Board is whether the Veteran's current pulmonary fibrosis is related to his in-service exposure to herbicide agents.

The Veteran presented for VA examination in July 2023. The examiner confirmed the Veteran's diagnosis of pulmonary fibrosis. The Veteran reported that his condition began in 2019 when he went to his primary care physician for a chronic cough and shortness of breath. See VA Examination received August 2023.

The Veteran submitted an opinion from a private physician in August 2025. The provider has been treating the Veteran since February 2020 and stated that he has exhibited slowly worsening pulmonary fibrosis. The provider opined that it is more than likely that the Veteran's condition is a direct result of his exposure to herbicide agents during service. The provider reviewed the Veteran's medical history and service records in preparation for his opinion. See August 2025 Medical Treatment Record.

The Board finds the August 2025 private opinion both adequate and probative. The August 2025 opinion was provided upon review of the Veteran's medical records and the examiner provided supporting rationale for the opinion. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302-04 (2008) (noting that the central issue in determining the probative value of an opinion is whether the examiner was informed of the relevant facts in rendering a medical opinion); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 125 (2007) (holding that a mere medical conclusion is insufficient to permit the Board to make an informed decision regarding the probative value of that opinion). The Board thus accords significant probative value to this opinion.

The Board acknowledges the July 2023 VA opinion in which the VA examiner opined that the Veteran's pulmonary fibrosis was less likely than not caused by herbicide agent exposure. However, the Board can find no basis to reduce the probative value of the August 2025 private medical opinion. Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's pulmonary fibrosis is due to his in-service exposure to herbicide agents. The Board finds the Veteran's pulmonary fibrosis was caused by his exposure to herbicide agents during service. 

(Continued on the next page)

?

Thus, the Board concludes that service connection for pulmonary fibrosis is warranted as the evidence shows that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's pulmonary fibrosis is due to his exposure to herbicide agents during service. As the evidence is at least in equipoise for the claim of entitlement to service connection for pulmonary fibrosis, the claim is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).

 

 

David Gratz

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Henderson, Catherine

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.