KIDNEY NEOPLASM OF MALIGNANT

DAVID L. WIGHT · 2026 · Case ID: A26040626

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Marine Corps from September 1980 to June 1983, appeals the denial of service connection for prostate cancer and the remand of his claim for PTSD. The Board found that the evidence was in equipoise regarding the Veteran's prostate cancer claim, granting service connection. This decision was based on the Veteran's service at Fort McClellan, Alabama, a location with documented exposure to hazardous materials, chemicals, and radiation, including PCBs and radioactive compounds. While the Veteran's service treatment records did not mention prostate cancer, the Board gave moderate probative weight to a private medical opinion from February 2025, which linked the Veteran's prostate cancer to Fort McClellan exposures, citing strong evidence of PCB carcinogenicity and bioaccumulation. This opinion was contrasted with a VA examination from June 2020, which opined less likely than not that the cancer was service-related, citing family history as a significant risk factor and a lack of direct evidence linking exposures to the cancer. The Board found the private opinion more persuasive due to its detailed explanation of PCB mechanisms and the Veteran's service history at Fort McClellan. The PTSD claim was remanded due to duty-to-assist errors, including the failure to verify the August 1981 stressor incident and the lack of a VA examination for the PTSD claim. The AOJ must now attempt to verify the claimed PTSD stressors and obtain a VA medical opinion on the nature and etiology of the Veteran's PTSD.

Rationale

Evidence of record is at least in equipoise regarding toxic exposures during service.; Private medical opinion provided moderate probative weight, linking prostate cancer to Fort McClellan exposures.; VA examination opinion afforded minimal probative weight due to conclusory nature and lack of direct evidence.

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210826-182983

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040626
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 210826-182983
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is granted.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's prostate cancer was caused by toxic exposures during service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from September 1980 to June 1983.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an August 2021 rating decision issued by an Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

In August 2021, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, electing the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on December 9, 2024. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2021 rating decision, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his attorney 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 of entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

However, because the Board is remanding the claim for service connection for PTSD, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of those claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii).

1. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer.

Legal Criteria

Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that an injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in active military service or, if preexisting, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

Generally, to establish service connection, there must be evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. See, e.g., Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case and when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (the claimant is entitled to the benefit-of-the-doubt when competing evidence is in "approximate balance" or "nearly equal"; exact equipoise is not required to trigger the favorable benefit-of-the-doubt rule).

Analysis

In an August 2021 rating decision, the AOJ made the favorable finding of a current diagnosis of a disability. This satisfies the first element of service connection, leaving an in-service event, injury, or illness, and a nexus remaining.

The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) do not indicate a complaint, treatment, or diagnosis
3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (the claimant is entitled to the benefit-of-the-doubt when competing evidence is in "approximate balance" or "nearly equal"; exact equipoise is not required to trigger the favorable benefit-of-the-doubt rule).

Analysis

The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) do not indicate a complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of prostate cancer or related symptoms.

With his claim form submitted February 28, 2020, the Veteran submitted multiple pieces of evidence indicating the presence of toxic hazards at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

An executive summary regarding industrial radiation at Fort McClellan provided by the Department of the Army was submitted. A study concluded there are potential radiological health hazards in the Burial Mound Survey Unit and that soil samples indicated residual contamination of cobalt-60 and cesium-137. Radiation was detected in various parts of the Fort, particularly in the Troop Assembly Area. The study was dated August 29 through September 15, 1995, and January 14 through 28, 1996.

A Combined Environmental Exposure Report ("Report" herein) regarding Fort McClellan, Alabama dated August 25, 2013, was also provided. The Report noted that Fort McClellan is located in and around Anniston, Alabama. Anniston is listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's "National Priorities List" due to polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) contamination. PCBs are considered a probable carcinogen and have been found to cause skin irritation, liver damage, neurobehavioral and immunological changes and other health problems. These PCBs can be transferred in the air, dissolve in water, and disperse downstream when released into the environment. PCBs remain in the environment for long periods in soil and sediment and can be transferred to humans by consuming contaminated water and food. The Report noted that the EPA found the vast majority of PCBs in the Anniston area were released from the former Monsanto Company's manufacturing plant and that exposures are from direct contact with contaminated media such as soil, sediment, and surface water and consumption of agricultural products from the floodplain such as vegetables, beef, and fish.

The Report also noted that other dangerous chemicals were located, used, and occasionally spilled on Fort McClellan as it was home to the U.S. Army Chemical School from 1951 to 1999. Numerous violations regarding the labelling, storage, handling, tracking, inspection, and use of hazardous chemicals were found by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management throughout the 1980s and 90s. These include pesticides, herbicides, and chemical warfare agents. Lastly, the Report also noted the use and contamination of radiological materials as was noted above. Citations to supporting materials were provided as footnotes throughout the Report. See Third Party Correspondence received February 28, 2020.

VA acknowledges potential exposure to such hazardous materials at Fort McClellan. See Potential Exposure at Fort McClellan, https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/fort-mcclellan/ (last visited April 22, 2026).

The evidence of record indicates that the Veteran was stationed at Fort McClellan, Alabama for basic military police training from January 12, 1981, to March 5, 1981. See McCl Form 824-R, in Military Personnel Record received March 25, 2020.

Thus, the Board finds that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous material, chemicals, and radiation during his time in service. This satisfies the second element of service connection.

The Veteran was provided with a VA examination in June 2020. The examiner noted a 2007 prostate cancer diagnosis. The Veteran underwent a prostatectomy in 2007, and his PSA levels started slowly rising again in 2014 and doubled in 2018. The Veteran undergoes monitoring every six months due to biochemical recurrence. A current symptom of erectile dysfunction was noted. The examiner opined it is less likely than not that the Veteran's prostate cancer is due to hazardous exposure during service. "The veteran has a family history of prostate cancer (veteran's father had prostate cancer), which is a significant risk factor. Having a father or brother with prostate cancer more than doubles a man's risk of developing this disease (American Cancer Society, 2020). There is no evidence to support the claim that the veteran's prostate cancer incurred in or
. The Veteran underwent a prostatectomy in 2007, and his PSA levels started slowly rising again in 2014 and doubled in 2018. The Veteran undergoes monitoring every six months due to biochemical recurrence. A current symptom of erectile dysfunction was noted. The examiner opined it is less likely than not that the Veteran's prostate cancer is due to hazardous exposure during service. "The veteran has a family history of prostate cancer (veteran's father had prostate cancer), which is a significant risk factor. Having a father or brother with prostate cancer more than doubles a man's risk of developing this disease (American Cancer Society, 2020). There is no evidence to support the claim that the veteran's prostate cancer incurred in or was caused by exposure to pesticides, and radiation and chemical exposure at Ft McClellan during service."

In December 2024, the Veteran testified before the Board at a hearing. The Veteran reported that he spent his time at Fort McClellan all over the base. He also stated that his father was in his early 60s when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer compared to 46 when he was diagnosed.

In February 2025, the Veteran submitted a private medical opinion dated February 19, 2025. The provider noted experience in internal medicine, neurology, and pharmacology with training and experience in toxicology and experimental therapeutics. The provider opined it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's prostate cancer is due to his exposure to contaminant at Fort McClellan. The provider noted potential exposures to radioactive compounds, chemical warfare agents, and PCBs. Of note is the exposure to PCBs. The provider explained that PCBs were created and used in industrial and commercial applications and that they adsorb strongly to sediment and soil where they persist with half-lives of months to years. They also bioaccumulate in the food chain, and because of their stability and lipophilicity, PCBs preferentially bioaccumulate in fatty tissues and persist in the body. The provider explained that numerous studies indicate a strong link between malignancies and PCB exposure. The exact mechanism as to how the cancer is cause has not been determined, but the best evidence indicates that PCBs can covalently bind to nucleophilic cellular macromolecules (e.g., protein, DNA, RNA) and induce DNA strand breaks and DNA repair, which can contribute to the toxic response of PCBs, and this is how they cause cancer. The chemical composition which is composed of the basic organic solvent of PCBs is retained in some body tissues for a long time, even decades, so target organ exposure continues even after external exposure ceases. "Even a brief external exposure can involve protracted exposure of many organs." "PCBs and its inherent properties have the propensity to stay dormant in the human body for decades before symptoms are apparent." The provider cited twenty-two references in support of the opinion.

The Board finds that the evidence of record is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's prostate cancer is related to toxic exposures during service.

The June 2020 VA medical opinion is afforded minimal probative weight. The opinion is conclusory and stated there is no evidence to support the notion that exposures at Fort McClellan cause the Veteran's prostate cancer.

In contrast, the February 2025 private medical opinion is afforded moderate probative weight. Therein, the provider explained what PCBs are, how they cause cancer, and how they are at least as likely as not to be the cause of the Veteran's prostate cancer.

Thus, the evidence of record is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's prostate cancer is related to toxic exposures during service.

Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is granted.

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is remanded.

In an August 2021 rating decision, the AOJ made the favorable finding of a current diagnosis of a disability.

Upon review, the Board finds that remand is warranted for further development.

In February 2020, the Veteran submitted a private examination dated September 5, 2013. Therein, the provider diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD.

When filing his claim for service connection for PTSD, the Veteran described two incidents when responding to vehicle related accidents. See VA Form 21-0781, Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) received February 28, 2020.

The Veteran clarified the dates and locations of these incidents in March 2020. He explained that in June 1981, a vehicle roll over incident occurred off base. In August 1981, he explained that a CPR incident took place on base. See VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim received March 25, 2020.

2013. Therein, the provider diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD.

The AOJ attempted to confirm the June 1981 incident. In June 2021, a Records Research Center (RRC) Response could not locate evidence of the June 1981 incident. The researcher noted that Marine Corps records were requested but no supporting documentation was found. The RRC noted that the incident occurred off base.

The Board notes that the evidence of record does not indicate that the AOJ attempted to verify the August 1981 PTSD stressor incident.

The Board also notes that the Veteran was not provided with a VA examination in connection with his claim.

In determining whether the duty to assist requires that a VA medical examination be provided or medical opinion obtained with respect to a veteran's claim for benefits, there are four factors to consider: (1) whether there is competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) whether there is evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or evidence establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumption period; (3) whether there is an indication that the disability or symptoms may be associated with service or with another service-connected disability; and (4) whether there otherwise is insufficient competent medical evidence of record to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The third factor, in particular, is a low threshold. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).

Here, the first element is satisfied in the finding of a current diagnosis of PTSD. Next, the Veteran's statements provided with his claim are evidence that his PTSD is related to these stressor incidents, satisfying the second and third elements. Last, there is insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether the Veteran's PTSD is related to these incidents. Thus, remand is warranted for a VA examination and medical opinion.

Under the AMA, when the Board identifies a duty to assist error occurring prior to the date of the AOJ decision on appeal (i.e., a pre-decisional duty to assist error), the Board will remand the appeal back to the AOJ with instructions to correct the error. See 38 C.F.R. 3.159(c), 20.802(a). Following correction of the error, the AOJ must readjudicate the issue or issues. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2502. After the AOJ readjudicates the issue or issues, a claimant may choose to file a new appeal to the Board from such readjudication or request higher-level review (HLR) or a supplemental claim with the AOJ.

Regarding attempts to verify the Veteran's PTSD stressor incidents, the Board finds a duty-to-assist error. First, the AOJ did not attempt to verify the August 1981 incident. Next, the RRD did not attempt to obtain relevant records from state and/or local authorities regarding the June 1981 incident. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1). The AOJ must make reasonable efforts to obtain these records.

During the December 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran noted that the Oceanside Police Department and the California Highway Patrol may have records related to the June 1981 incident.

These duty-to-assist errors require remand for further development.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. The AOJ should review the claims file to compile details regarding the Veteran's reported June 1981 and August 1981 PTSD stressor incidents and prepare a complete summary of all claimed stressors, including but not limited to, a third motorcycle accident as described in the December 2024 Board hearing. The AOJ should make an appropriate request to the Marine Corps or National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) records for verification of any stressor, as appropriate. Additional requests should be made to the Oceanside Police Department and the California Highway Patrol. Any additional development recommended by such agencies should be accomplished. If the stressor cannot be verified, the AOJ should prepare

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

2. After completing the above development, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's PTSD. The examiner should review the claims file, to include a copy of this remand and the above-mentioned development and records and note such review. After review, the examiner should respond to the following:

(a.) Identify all psychiatric disorders.

(b.) For each disorder, opine whether it is at least as likely as not (a likelihood that is approximately evenly balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's psychiatric disorder is related to service.

(c.) The examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he had first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation.

(d.) A lack of documentation in the medical records is not a sufficient basis for a negative opinion.

(e.) A complete rationale with discussion of medical literature for any opinion expressed must be provided. If an opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the

record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training).

DAVID L. WIGHT

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Saul, P.

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