Citation Nr: 21075526 Decision Date: 12/20/21 Archive Date: 12/20/21 DOCKET NO. 15-28 604 DATE: December 20, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II due to exposure to various chemical or biological agents, to include herbicide agents, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for diabetic neuropathy of the left lower extremity, to include as due to diabetes mellitus, type II and/or exposure to various chemical or biological agents, to include herbicide agents, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for diabetic neuropathy of the right lower extremity, to include as due to diabetes mellitus, type II and/or exposure to various chemical or biological agents, to include herbicide agents, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to diabetes mellitus, type II and/or exposure to various chemical or biological agents, to include herbicide agents, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for low testosterone, to include as due to diabetes mellitus, type II and/or exposure to various chemical or biological agents, to include herbicide agents, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran did not have service in the Republic of Vietnam, and he was not exposed to herbicide agents, such as Agent Orange, during service in Fort McClellan, Alabama or in Korea. 2. The Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II, did not have its onset in service or within one year of service and is not etiologically related to service, to include exposure to various chemicals. 3. The Veteran's neuropathy of the left lower extremity did not have its onset in service or within one year of service and is not etiologically related to service, to include exposure to various chemicals; nor is it caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. 4. The Veteran's neuropathy of the right lower extremity did not have its onset in service or within one year of service and is not etiologically related to service, to include exposure to various chemicals; nor is it caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. 5. The Veteran's hypertension did not have its onset in service or within one year of service and is not etiologically related to service, to include exposure to various chemicals; nor is it caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. 6. The Veteran's low testosterone did not have its onset in service or within one year of service and is not etiologically related to service, to include exposure to various chemicals; nor is it caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for type II diabetes mellitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for neuropathy of the left lower extremity, to include on a secondary basis, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. 3. The criteria for service connection for neuropathy of the right lower extremity, to include on a secondary basis, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. 4. The criteria for service connection for hypertension, to include on a secondary basis, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. 5. The criteria for service connection for low testosterone, to include on a secondary basis, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from July 1969 to January 1972. He had additional service in the National Guard from January 1972 to November 1989. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2019, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is of record. These matters were previously remanded by the Board in February 2020 for further development. Specifically, the Board requested a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's diabetes mellitus in light of the Veteran's conceded exposure to various chemical agents, other than Agent Orange; additionally, if the Veteran's bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities, hypertension, and low testosterone were found not to be secondary to his diabetes mellitus, type II, then VA opinions were requested to determine whether these disorders were etiologically related to his conceded exposure to various chemical or biological agents, to include tactical and commercial herbicides other than Agent Orange. The Board notes that the Veteran was afforded VA examinations for his diabetes mellitus, type II, peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, and low testosterone; direct and secondary medical opinions were obtained for each disorder other than peripheral neuropathy. Although opinions were not received specific to the issues of the bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, the diabetes mellitus examination indicates that the Veteran's diabetic peripheral neuropathy was a complication of his diabetes mellitus, type II. Thus, given that medical opinions addressing the nature and etiology of his bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy were requested only if the disorders were not secondary to his diabetes mellitus type II, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the February 2020 remand directives with respect to each issue on appeal. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Service Connection Establishing service connection generally requires (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Continuity of symptomatology may also provide a basis for a grant of service connection for diseases defined as "chronic" by VA. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015). Certain chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension, are subject to presumptive service connection if manifest to a compensable degree within one year from separation from service even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). For the showing of a chronic disease in service, there must be a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. If chronicity in service is not established, evidence of continuity of symptoms after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). However, the use of continuity of symptoms to establish service connection is limited only to those diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) and does not apply to other disabilities which might be considered chronic from a medical standpoint. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Board must assess the credibility and weight of all evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence, which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the appellant. Equal weight is not accorded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; not every item of evidence has the same probative value. When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the appellant prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The Board notes that the Veteran has submitted a great deal of evidence in support of his claims, and in this regard, the Board notes that it has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence in the Veteran's VA files. In every decision, the Board must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination, adequate to enable an appellant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision, as well as to facilitate review by the Court. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); see Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 527 (1995). Although the entire record must be reviewed by the Board, the Court has repeatedly found that the Board is not required to discuss, in detail, every piece of evidence. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143, 149 (2001) (rejecting the notion that the Veterans Claims Assistance Act mandates that the Board discuss all evidence). Rather, the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the appellant. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claim. The Veteran should not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See id. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, hypertension, and low testosterone is denied. At the outset, the Board acknowledges that post-service medical treatment records show that the Veteran has received diagnoses of type II diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy. Additionally, VA medical records reflect treatment for low testosterone levels. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs), however, are silent for complaints or treatment related to type II diabetes mellitus, neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, hypertension, and low testosterone. Thus, there is no evidence in this case, nor does the Veteran contend, that type II diabetes mellitus, neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, hypertension, or low testosterone had their onset during his period of active service. Nor is there evidence to suggest the presence of any of the claimed disabilities until many years after his active service, and thus, there is no indication of continuity of symptoms since service or that the Veteran's type II diabetes mellitus, neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, hypertension, or low testosterone manifested to a compensable degree within one year of his separation from active service. Accordingly, service connection for these disabilities cannot be granted on a direct basis based on in-service incurrence or on a presumptive basis for chronic diseases. However, the Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for diabetes mellitus, as due to exposure to various chemical or biological agents, to include tactical and commercial herbicide agents. Additionally, he contends that service connection is warranted for bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, and low testosterone as due to his diabetes mellitus, or alternatively, as due to exposure to various chemical or biological agents, to include tactical and commercial herbicide agents. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that while stationed at Fort McClellan, Alabama he was exposed to various chemical and biological agents in fulfilling the duties of his military occupational specialty (MOS). In addition, the Veteran claims repeated exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at Fort McClellan and the surrounding area, specifically the city of Anniston, Alabama, as a result of the Monsanto Corporation's manufacturing plant in Anniston. He also contends that he was exposed to herbicide agents at the Anniston Army Depot, Fort McClellan, and in Korea. According to his DD-214, the Veteran's MOS was that of a Smoke and Flame Specialist. Various training certifications reflect that the Veteran received training in the handling and disposal of chemical and biological agents at the Army Chemical Center and School at Fort McClellan, AL as a chemical staff specialist 54E20 from July 1969 to December 1970. Additionally, the record reflects that the Veteran was in Korea from January 1971 to January 1972. As noted in the Board's February 2020 decision, exposure to various chemicals, other than Agent Orange, has been conceded. Per the Board's remand, such exposure includes chemical smokes, fog, oil, white phosphorous, heavy metals, solvents, petroleum products, pesticides, trichloroethylene (TCE), chemical warfare agents such as mustard gas and nerve agents used in decontamination testing activities in isolated locations on base, and PCBs in the air and soil from the Monsanto plant. Accordingly, to the extent that the Veteran or his attorney has submitted additional evidence to demonstrate exposure to any of the aforementioned chemicals, as such exposure has already been established, the Board will not address this evidence. At the outset, the Board notes that despite the Veteran's conceded mustard gas exposure, none of his claimed disabilities on appeal are listed diseases for which service connection is warranted on a presumptive basis due to such exposure. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.316. The Board will therefore first focus its discussion on the evidence addressing whether the Veteran was also exposed to herbicide agents consistent with 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii). In this regard, VA recognizes that certain enumerated diseases are associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents, specifically 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminate TCDD; cacodylic acid; and picloram. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii), 3.309(e). Type II diabetes mellitus and early-onset peripheral neuropathy are such enumerated diseases. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). For those who had active service in the Republic of Vietnam between January 1962 and May 1975, exposure to herbicide agents shall be presumed. Likewise, certain veterans who served between April 1, 1968, and August 31, 1971, in certain areas of the Korean DMZ shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent during such service, 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); 3.814(c)(2). The Board notes, however, that the evidence does not reflect that he was ever in the Republic of Vietnam or, as will be discussed below, at or near the Korean DMZ. Nevertheless, service connection may still be established with proof of actual direct causation. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In various lay statements, the Veteran reported that he traveled or came in contact with every acre of Fort McClellan and Pelham Range, either as a soldier residing in the barracks, or through his many training experiences, (i.e., tactical road marches, physical training, weapons ranges, vehicle convoys, land navigation courses, field training exercises (FTXs), etc. and even being lost during training maneuvers.). He further reported that he participated in hundreds of hours (10 - 15 hours/daily) of outdoor and tactical training all over Fort McClellan and Pelham Range, and explained that such training events took place throughout main post, Choccolocco Corridor, Baines Gap, Yahoo Lake, Pelham Range, Bivouac Area B-44, Rideout Hall, various weapon ranges, etc. The Veteran further reported that, as a basic trainee and later as a Noncommissioned Officer (NCO), he participated in approximately 24 weeks of very intense Basic and Chemical Corps training with countless hours and days spent on the ground doing physical training in various grassy fields at Fort McClellan; drill and weapons training; tactical road marches; hundreds of hours of marksmanship training on rifle and pistol ranges, and multiple four to five day FTXs. During the FTXs, he routinely laid on the ground for several hours during the day/night, performing such tasks as guard duty; perimeter guard; fire-team member, and/or fire guard, etc. He low/high-crawled across fields, for yards at a time, through soil, water, mud, grass, weeds, kudzu, and various other vegetation, and slept on the ground in "pup-tents," every night during these events. In a January 2014 statement, the Veteran described traveling to Anniston Army Depot to review RPG damage. He stated that he brought up the subject of Anniston Army Depot and all the damaged tanks and tracks they were bringing in from Vietnam. He noted that he was reviewing all the RPG hits and looking at all the battle damage and what modern weapons do armored vehicles. At that point, he was informed that he should be careful around "that stuff" because it was not being cleaned well in Vietnam before shipment. Specifically, he reported that he learned that body parts were found in some of the vehicles. The Veteran asserts that some of the heaviest spraying of Agent Orange was in 1969 and 1970, and he started going to Anniston Army Depot in approximately March 1970 through December 1970. He indicated that he was therefore exposed approximately every two to three weeks for over nine months during the 1970's as a result. In a May 2014 statement, the Veteran also noted that he worked with and performed maintenance on power driven decontamination apparatus known as PDDA M-3 and M-1 2, and a number of these units had been used for spraying defoliants (herbicides) on Fort McClellan or the Pelham range areas. A statement from J.B., received in May 2014, states that he served with the Veteran at the Chemical School, Field Support Company at Fort McClellan from January 1970 to December 1970. The statement notes that their duties required them to be exposed to chemicals, including herbicides such as Agent Orange, as part of their military training in herbicidal warfare. Herbicides were utilized and applied as range maintenance control measures for firebreaks, brush clearing, and weed control in and around all training facilities; however, recorded use of the herbicides was not performed because it was termed "small scale non-tactical herbicide applications". A September 2014 deferred rating decision noted the need for research by the compensation and pension (C&P) Agent Orange section on the issue of exposure to Agent Orange while the Veteran was stationed at Fort McClellan, AL between October 1959 and December 1970. In response to the September 2014 Regional Office's request for a review of the Department of Defense's (DOD) herbicide agent operations, in which a statement from the Veteran describing his claimed exposure was provided, it was explained that the inventory does not include information on routine base management as that was accomplished with commercial herbicide agents worldwide. It was noted that commercial herbicide agents do not fall under the regulations governing Agent Orange exposure at 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(i). It was stated that DOD had not identified Fort McClellan as a location where Agent Orange was used, tested, or stored; however, the Veteran may have been exposed to commercial herbicides, which were used on military bases worldwide as part of routine base maintenance. The September 2014 response instructs the AOJ should refer the Veteran's claim of exposure to Agent Orange to the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC). A November 2014 deferred rating reflects a referral to JSRRC with exposure limited to January 1970 to February 1970 while the Veteran was assigned to the Munitions Platoon, Field Support Company, Troop Command, U.S. Army Chemical Center and School, Fort McClellan, AL. The Veteran reported that, following his service at Fort McClellan, he was stationed in Korea. In a December 2014 statement, the Veteran described his duties as a Chemical Corps Equipment Specialist from January 1971 to August 1971. He reported that he was responsible for the maintenance and repair of chemical equipment such as the M-106 mighty mite agricultural sprayer. He described cleaning the equipment, noting that he was never issued safety gloves, rubber aprons, or other protective items to prevent contact with the oily residue left on the units; nor was he aware at the time that these units were used for that function. He indicated that, in August 1971, he was transferred to Seoul, Korea. He notes that "at no time was I actually at or on the DMZ". In a December 2014 statement from J.M., he states that he met the Veteran in January 1971 after he arrived at Camp Grant (Inchon), South Korea. The statement indicates that he trained the Veteran for their MOS as a Chemical Equipment Repairman. Their section repaired and maintained chemical equipment coming from other units within Korea, including the DMZ; the equipment included herbicide dispersing equipment. The statement further notes that there were separate groups of the M106 mighty mites, which were used for dispersing powder or liquid riot control agents or defoliants. J.M states that it was common knowledge at the time that defoliants, including Agent Orange, Blue, and others, had been used in the DMZ area. A Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS) response, received January 2015, reflects that, in coordination with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in College Park, MD, 1970 unit records submitted by the Munitions Platoon, Field Support Company, Troop Command, U.S. Army Chemical Center and School, Fort McClellan, AL were unable to be located. Additionally, despite research and a review of the evidence and statements submitted by the Veteran, the response stated they were unable to document or verify the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange or other tactical herbicides while stationed at Fort McClellan because the Army historical records available did not document the spraying, testing, transporting, storage, or usage of Agent Orange or other chemical herbicides at Fort McClellan during the period January 1, 1970 through February 28, 1970; the OMPF did verify the Veteran served in South Korea near the end of the conceded date range under 38 C.F.R. § 3.814(c)(2). In January 2015, a formal finding on a lack of information required to verify exposure to Agent Orange through Ft. McClellan, AL and South Korea was issued. A statement was received in January 2015, from S.P.W, indicating that, in May 1968 to December 1969, S.P.W. was assigned to the LTC Hodge 2nd Infantry Division Chemical Section, involved in the mixing and spraying of Agent Orange at the DMZ. He also described treating other areas, including bases. However, not only was the Veteran not present in Korea until 1971, but none of the locations at which the Veteran was present were noted. Additionally, a statement was received from J.J.F in June 2017, discussing J.J.F.'s duties in Korea, supervising the application of Agent Orange at the DMZ. It notes that, on several occasions, he personally delivered the equipment used for spraying Agent Orange to the 516th Light Equipment Maintenance Company for repairs several times between April 1969 and November 1969 and from April 1970 and September 1970. In this regard, the Board notes that the evidence reflects that the Veteran did not serve at the DMZ and was not in Korea until 1971. Therefore, these statements do not offer any probative support for the Veteran's claim. A statement was received in April 2019 from W.M, PhD, discussing herbicide use near the DMZ in Korea between April 1969 and October 1969. Dr. M. served with the chemical company at Camp Mosier and was TDY to the 2nd Infantry as part of the Defoliation Team, which was responsible for spraying chemical agents, specifically agents blue, white, and orange, along the fence line of the US Sector of the DMZ. Dr. M. stated that he also sprayed along roadways to keep dust down as well as the vegetation along the roads. He noted that he and his team sprayed entrances to infantry, artillery and air defense companies and battalions assigned in the general area of the DMZ. Specifically, he stated that they "sprayed every road and entrance into every combat company north of Freedom Bridge and the entire Western Corridor the US had responsibility to defend." As noted above, however, the evidence does not reflect, nor does the Veteran contend, that he ever served at or near the DMZ, and the statement does not otherwise provide the specific locations sprayed. Moreover, the evidence reflects that the Veteran did not serve in Korea until 1971. Thus, this statement does not provide any probative support for the Veteran's claim. The Board recognizes that the Veteran's attorney has indicated that the Veteran has "consistently testified that he was near the DMZ"; however, the Board does not find this to be an accurate representation of the Veteran's contentions. Indeed, while the Veteran has stated that he was in Korea and maintained equipment that had reportedly been used to spray herbicide agents, the Veteran himself has indicated that he was never at or on the DMZ and that he was in fact "forbidden by orders to be up in the DMZ area." He confirmed that he was never at or near the DMZ when asked at his Board hearing about his service in Korea. As such, to the extent that the Veteran's attorney asserts that the Veteran has claimed that he was near the DMZ, the Board finds that this assertion is inconsistent with the Veteran's own reports. With regard to the Veteran's contention that he was exposed to herbicide agents as a result of his direct contact with vehicles and equipment that were previously exposed to herbicide agents at the DMZ (or in Vietnam), the Board points out that there is no presumption of exposure to herbicide agents though secondary contact with equipment believed to have been exposed to herbicide agents. Instead, the record must contain competent and credible evidence of such exposure. In this case, the weight of the evidence is against such a finding. Even if such equipment had been exposed to herbicide agents at some point, the Veteran has not shown that he is competent to provide probative evidence of his exposure to herbicide agents, including 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminate TCDD; cacodylic acid; and picloram noted within 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii), from his contact with equipment or vehicles that may have been used at the DMZ, in Vietnam, or other locations where herbicide agent exposure is recognized based on his observations alone. These statements, therefore, are also afforded no probative value. Further, the Veteran's attorney has raised points of disagreement with VA regulations regarding recognized exposure to herbicide agents at or near the DMZ. To the extent that the Veteran and his attorney appear to argue that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents in Korea by virtue of his MOS alone, without any evidence, lay or otherwise, that he was at or near the DMZ, there is no basis for this contention. The Veteran and his attorney also assert that exposure to herbicide agents should be found based on his service at Camp Humphrey because Camp Humphrey was the command post for many of the units recognized as presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents for service at the DMZ. However, the Board notes that only certain veterans who served in certain areas of the Korean DMZ shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent during such service. Thus, it is not enough that the Veteran himself had a certain MOS or that he was at a location with others who had a certain MOS to establish that he was exposed to herbicide agents. Rather, even if the Veteran's MOS was one of those listed, it still must be shown that he served at or near the DMZ. He has made no such argument here and the evidence does not reflect otherwise. Additionally, while the Board acknowledges that the Veteran's attorney has argued that there were other areas surrounding the DMZ that used herbicide agents for defoliation, including outposts, command posts, and a 30 meter strip on each side of "tactically significant roads", the Veteran's attorney in fact acknowledges that there is no evidence identifying which specific areas used herbicide agents. Nevertheless, the Veteran's attorney has indicated that 100 meters around the command post at Camp Humphrey was defoliated. Even if the Veteran is asserting that he was exposed to herbicide agents at Camp Humphreys on the basis of the lack of vegetation surrounding the base, the Board notes that the mere observation of dead vegetation or spraying of vegetation does not necessarily mean that an herbicide agent such as 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminate TCDD, cacodylic acid, and picloram was used, and while the Board recognizes that the Veteran has training with handling various chemicals, the evidence does not reflect that the Veteran has the necessary expertise to identify chemical compounds such that his observation alone is sufficient to establish the presence of herbicide agents consistent with 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii) and his exposure thereto; therefore, the Board affords these statements no probative value. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Thus, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his service in Korea. Nevertheless, the Veteran's attorney has additionally submitted a great deal of evidence suggesting that herbicide agents, including those listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii), were present at Fort McClellan, Alabama. Specifically, the Veteran's attorney indicates that evidence of herbicide agent use at Fort McClellan dates to the late 1950's when the military began testing herbicide agents for use in tactical environments and use of some herbicide agents continued even into the 1990's. His attorney points to a 2012 report on Fort Detrick's herbicide program which indicates that the Fort Detrick Crops Division "schedule of major investigations" from October 1956 through June 1957 included plans for a "massive release of pure agent trials" at Avon Park, FL "and additional screening and development trials at Fort McClellan, among other tests." Additionally, the Veteran submitted unclassified records showing that chemicals were sent to Korea from Fort Detrick for testing. However, none of this evidence supports a finding that such chemicals were sent to or used at Fort McClellan while he was stationed there in 1969 to 1970. The Veteran's attorney further notes that forms of 2, 4, 5-T, undiluted with 2,4-D (as in Herbicide Orange) were available in the Federal Supply System as "commercial" herbicides. According to his attorney, the Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS), "Military Exposures - Potential Exposure at Fort McClellan" proves that herbicide agents as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6) and its controlling statute were in fact used routinely on Fort McClellan. The Veteran's attorney noted the composition of Agent Orange and indicated that some of the same chemicals found in Agent Orange comprised Agents Pink, Purple, Green, Blue, and White. The Veteran's attorney indicates, specifically, that Agent White was a mixture of 2,4-D and picloram, which was also known as Tardon 101, and the EBS indicated that many of these contaminants which comprise herbicide agents were used at Fort McClellan in 1974, 1975, and 1976. The Board notes that even if these contaminants were present at Fort McClellan, this was years after the Veteran served at Fort McClellan. Furthermore, the Veteran's attorney points to an April 1996 interview of a forester who worked on FTMC from 1960 to 1987, which states that he "maintained fire lanes throughout all of Main Post, Pelham Range, and Choccolocco Corridor." He stated that he used a lot of Tordon in the form of both liquid and pellets." He further stated that the "forestry staff used decontamination trucks to apply liquid pesticides and herbicides." A January 25, 1977 interview of FTMC's Assistant Post Forester states the forester listed part of his duties involved "vegetation manipulation for Army training" and also stated the following herbicides were used: "Tordon 101 [pichloric acid] and Tordon 110, and 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T." The Board interprets the former statement as indicating merely that the forester worked at Fort McClellan from 1960 to 1987 and that, at some point in time, Tordon was used at the base. The Board does not interpret either statement to contend that Tordon or 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T were sprayed in 1969 or 1970 when the Veteran was stationed at Fort McClellan. The Veteran's attorney also provided a June 1970 patent for a defoliation evaluation device, the inventors of which were from Fort McClellan. The Veteran's attorney notes that this device was meant to determine the effectiveness of defoliation missions in Vietnam and was designed in part by the personnel at Fort McClellan. While the Board acknowledges that the Veteran's attorney also indicates that 2,4,5-T and cacodylic acid were used to test the device at Fort McClellan, this is not indicated in the patent documents submitted. Nevertheless, the Board notes that while June 1970 is the date that the apparatus was patented, the patent was filed in February 1967; therefore, even if herbicide agents were used in the testing of the device anywhere at Fort McClellan before the patent was filed, this was before the Veteran's service there. The Veteran also submitted an independent medical evaluation by N.B., MD conducted in February 2017. Dr. N.B. noted in his evaluation that specific causation requires that the Veteran was frequently, proximately and repetitively exposed to Agent Orange components which he described very clearly both in his history and in the supporting documents as well as having ruled out other causes. The physician indicated that, although he could not say that this is the only cause, it is a significant, substantial cause in the development of his type II diabetes mellitus, and therefore, it is a service-connected disease. Although this opinion found that the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange based on his reported history, "supporting documents", and ruling out other causes, as there is no further explanation, description, or rationale provided on these points, the Board affords this opinion little probative value as it pertains to the Veteran's claimed exposure to Agent Orange. A March 2021 report titled "Likelihood of exposure to herbicide agents used in the Vietnam War by Veterans who served on Fort McClellan (FTMC) in Anniston, AL" by Dr. H.M. Dr. M, concluded, in her professional opinion as a "weed scientist", that it is more likely than not that those serving and/or living at FTMC between 1962-1976, 1976-1979, 1979-1999 (with overlap exposure 1985-1988 and 1989-1993) were exposed to the herbicide agents, the same ones used in Vietnam, via at least one or more exposure routes. She also noted that they were also more likely to receive a greater exposure to the contaminants TCDD, HCB, nitrosamines and arsenic than those with Vietnam service and the residual contamination of TCDD goes on past 2050. She further found that anyone undergoing any kind of military training conducted outdoors were at the maximum health-threatening exposure risk. While the Board has considered this report, the Board notes that the report widely encompasses exposure to various other chemicals in addition to herbicide agents, including chemicals in which the Board has already conceded exposure thereto, and much of the evidence provided in the report regarding herbicide agents at Fort McClellan covers timeframes after the Veteran's service there. Moreover, the Board notes that this opinion did not consider the Veteran's individual circumstances. Specifically, she did not try to correlate areas sprayed with the areas in which the Veteran was physically present. Finally, although the doctor mentioned the quantities needed to spray the entire base, Dr. H.M. did not attempt to explain why a base-wide spray pattern should be assumed. This opinion is therefore afforded little, if any, probative weight. The Board notes that the Veteran and his attorney have cited to various other articles, statements, and research in support of the contention that herbicide agents were present at Fort McClellan; however, the Board notes that each of these pieces of evidence addresses periods of time outside the Veteran's service period at Fort McClellan. The Veteran's attorney, acknowledging "gaps" in the evidence, nevertheless asserts that the evidence proves that herbicide agents were used at Fort McClellan during the Veteran's service. The Board has considered this evidence and finds that the evidence is generally overbroad and not specific to the Veteran's service. Indeed, the Board notes that the Veteran's attorney has essentially attempted to create an established fact, that the Veteran was factually exposed to herbicide agents, out of a quantum of data points concerning activity in and around Fort McClellan that have no relationship to the Veteran's experience during his service there. The Board will not dispute the prior findings that herbicides of whatever formulation may have been used at Fort McClellan at some point in time; however, the Board finds that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Veteran was actually exposed to any herbicide agents consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) during his service at Fort McClellan in 1969 or 1970. Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence submitted by the Veteran and his attorney is outweighed by the DOD records and DPRIS review of official DOD records. To the extent that buddy statements and the Veteran's own statements indicate that the Veteran trained with herbicide agents while at Fort McClendon, there is no evidence that the Veteran, or others that have provided such statements, have the necessary expertise to be able to specifically identify herbicide agents and they have not otherwise indicated how they became aware of such usage for training purposes. Due to the general nature of these statements in relationship to the also generalized scientific evidence that has been presented in support of his claim, the Board does not find the evidence of record persuasive that he was factually exposed to herbicide agents consistent with those noted in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) during his service at Fort McClellan, Alabama. The Board recognizes that the Veteran has cited to numerous prior Board decisions in support of his claim. In this regard, the Board notes that prior Board decisions are not precedential and the decision as to one appellant can have no precedential weight in the decision for a different veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303. While the Board acknowledges and has reviewed the Board decisions submitted by the Veteran, in the interest of brevity, the Board will not distinguish the Veteran's case from each one of the many previous Board decisions supplied or referenced and will instead simply point out that Board decisions must be made based on the facts and applicable legal authority specific to the case before it. Id. Thus, to the extent that the Veteran argues that exposure to herbicide agents at Fort McClellan has been established based on these prior Board decisions, the Board finds this argument has no merit. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) at any time during his service. However, as noted above, it has been established that the Veteran was exposed to various other chemicals, other than herbicide agents, and as such, the Board had previously requested VA examinations to determine whether any of his claimed disabilities are etiologically related to such exposure. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in March 2015, which show diagnoses of hypertension, with onset of symptoms in 2002; erectile dysfunction, with onset of low testosterone and symptoms of erectile dysfunction in 2007; diabetes mellitus type II, with onset of symptoms in 2010; and diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, with onset of symptoms in 2012. With regard to hypertension, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner reasoned that a review of blood pressure readings in 1992, August 1979, May 1968, and December 1972 revealed blood pressure readings within normal range. Regarding the Veteran's claim for low testosterone, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness because the examiner was "unable to provide a clear relationship to military service without resorting to mere speculation." Regarding his diabetes mellitus type II and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner reasoned that there is no documentation of diabetes mellitus or lower extremity complaints consistent with such conditions in the active duty medical service records provided for review. Without actual documentation of such complaints in his service records, no objective associations can be made with his diagnoses. The examiner further noted that there was no documentation in the service medical records either that explicitly states that the Veteran was exposed to chemical agents such as might occur with a spill with direct or inhalational contact or possibly handling without protection that could result in diabetes or the resultant neuropathy. As noted in its February 2020 remand, however, the Board found that the March 2015 VA opinion for diabetes mellitus was inadequate because the opinion was based solely on the lack of explicit evidence of chemical exposure in the Veteran's STRs. Consequently, upon remand, the Veteran was afforded new VA examinations in December 2020. A December 2020 VA examination notes a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, type II. The examiner found that the Veteran's diabetic neuropathy was a complication of his diabetes mellitus; however, the examiner indicated that the Veteran's hypertension was not associated with his diabetes mellitus. With regard to his hypertension, a separate December 2020 VA examination notes a diagnosis of hypertension and that the Veteran reported that it began in 2005. Finally, an additional December 2020 examination for male reproductive system disorders notes that the Veteran had erectile dysfunction; the Veteran reported it began in 2007, and he also reported a history of low testosterone. Regarding diabetes mellitus, the examiner indicated that the Veteran received a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, and medical evidence shows that the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange during service. As diabetes is a condition on the Agent Orange presumptive list, the Veteran's diabetes is at least as likely as not incurred in and/or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. With regard to his claimed low testosterone, the examiner indicated that there was no information to indicate that the Veteran developed erectile dysfunction as a result of diabetes; low testosterone can cause erectile dysfunction. Based on medical record review and the current examination, the examiner opined that erectile dysfunction is less likely than not proximately due to or the result of diabetes. The examiner also found that there was no information in the medical records to indicate that the Veteran's erectile dysfunction was aggravated beyond its natural progression by diabetes; evidence suggests the Veteran's erectile dysfunction was aggravated by low testosterone. Based on medical record review and the current examination, the examiner opined that erectile dysfunction was less likely than not aggravated beyond its natural progression by diabetes. The examiner further indicated that there was no information in the STRs to indicate that the Veteran developed erectile dysfunction during service. His January 1972 separation report was silent with regard to erectile dysfunction. Based on medical record review and current examination, the examiner opined that erectile dysfunction is less likely than not incurred in and/or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. Regarding hypertension, the examiner indicated that, according to the Veteran, he developed hypertension prior to diabetes. All relevant documents have been reviewed, and there was no information to indicate that the Veteran developed hypertension as a result of diabetes. Based on medical record review and the current examination, the examiner opined that hypertension is less likely than not proximately due to or the result of diabetes. The examiner also noted that there was no information in the medical records to indicate that the Veteran's hypertension was aggravated beyond its natural progression by diabetes; hypertension is typically aggravated by consuming too much salt and lack of physical activity. Based on medical record review and the current examination, the examiner opined that the Veteran's hypertension was less likely than not aggravated beyond its natural progression by diabetes. Further, the examiner indicated that there was no information in the STRs to indicate that the Veteran developed hypertension during service. His January 1972 separation examination was silent with regard to hypertension. Based on medical record review and current examination, the examiner opined that hypertension is less likely than not incurred in and/or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. Given that none of the December 2020 VA opinions addressed the Veteran's conceded exposure to various chemicals, other than Agent Orange, as requested in the Board's February 2020 remand directives, and the diabetes mellitus opinion was based on unestablished Agent Orange exposure, the RO ordered new medical opinions, which were obtained in January 2021. Addressing the Veteran's diabetes mellitus, the January 2021 examiner indicated that, through research and evidence analyzed and published by the CDC and the VA, the following assessments have been put forth in relation to exposures related to the environment in the Fort McLellan area: "On the basis of the data reviewed and if the sampling on June 25 and June 26, 2013 were representative of typical conditions, ATSDR concludes that concentrations of PCBs in air at the F, I, and J sampling stations were low and are not expected to result in an increased cancer risk or other harmful health effects in people living in the neighborhoods outside the perimeter of the former PCB manufacturing facility." The examiner went on to note that the 2021 VA publication states that "although exposures to high levels of these compounds have been shown to cause a variety of adverse health effects in humans and laboratory animals, there is no evidence of exposures of this magnitude having occurred at Fort McClellan. There are currently no adverse health conditions associated with service at Fort McClellan." Therefore, based on the body of current medical knowledge and the evidence of record, the examiner opined that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II is less likely than not related to his exposure to any toxins found to be present at Fort McClellan, AL to include: chemical smokes, fog, oil, white phosphorous, heavy metals, solvents, petroleum products, pesticides, trichloroethylene (TCE), chemical warfare agents such as mustard gas and nerve agents used in decontamination testing activities in isolated locations on base, PCBs in the air and soil from the Monsanto plant nearby, or any additional toxins identified in the Remand. Thus, his Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II is less likely than not incurred in and or caused by his exposure to any toxins found to be present at Fort McClellan during active duty military service. With regard to hypertension, the January 2021 VA examiner indicated that there is evidence in the civilian treatment records of the Veteran being diagnosed with diabetes mellitus type II sometime around 2011. The Veteran had apparently been pre-diabetic for some time prior to this period but it seems that criteria for diabetes mellitus type II was met sometime around 2011. He has been diet controlled since the time of diagnosis. Per the Agent Orange history and physical notations, the Veteran was diagnosed with hypertension in or around 2002. Therefore, based on the body of current medical knowledge and the evidence of record, the examiner opined that the Veteran's current hypertension is less likely than not proximately due to or the result of his diabetes mellitus type II. Additionally, as the Veteran appears to have remained in good control on the same/single medication during his treatment course, the examiner opined that hypertension is less likely than not aggravated beyond its natural progression by diabetes mellitus type II. The examiner further indicated that, based on the same rationale as that provided for the diabetes mellitus opinion, the Veteran's hypertension is less likely than not incurred in and or caused by the veteran's exposure to any toxins found to be present at Fort McClellan during active duty military service. Regarding low testosterone, the examiner indicated there is evidence in the civilian treatment records of the Veteran being diagnosed with diabetes mellitus type II sometime around 2011; he had apparently been pre-diabetic for some time prior to this period, but it seems that criteria for diabetes mellitus type II was met sometime around 2011. He has been diet controlled since the time of diagnosis. During this same time period, there is evidence of low testosterone levels. There is support in the medical literature that indicates that the link between diabetes and low testosterone is well established; men with diabetes are more likely to have low testosterone, and men with low testosterone are more likely to later develop diabetes. The examiner further noted that a met-analysis also showed that, "in unselected populations, diabetic subjects have lower testosterone levels (about 3nmol/L) than their counterparts without T2DM". Therefore, based on the body of current medical knowledge and the evidence of record, the examiner opined that the Veteran's low testosterone is at least as likely as not proximately due to or the result of his diabetes mellitus type II. The examiner further indicated that, based on the same rationale as that provided for the diabetes mellitus opinion, the Veteran's low testosterone is less likely than not incurred in and or caused by the Veteran's exposure to any toxins found to be present at Fort McClellan during active duty military service. Additionally, the examiner noted that hypogonadism is less likely than not related to his exposure to any toxins found to be present at Fort McClellan because there is no evidence in medical literature that suggests exposure to toxins increases the risk of low testosterone. After a review of the evidence, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted for the Veteran's diabetes mellitus type II, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, and low testosterone on a direct or secondary basis. In this regard, there is no probative medical evidence of record indicating that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus type II, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, and low testosterone was incurred in or caused by his active service, to include his exposure to various chemicals, other than Agent Orange. The Board has considered the medical opinions of record and finds that the January 2021 VA examination is the most probative evidence of record. The examiner reviewed the Veteran's medical records, his reported medical history, and considered his exposure to various chemicals during his active service. The examiner found that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus was not related to his active service, to include his exposure to various chemicals; and his hypertension, which was not caused or aggravated by his diabetes mellitus, was also not related to his active service, to include his exposure to various chemicals. The examiner also found that the Veteran's low testosterone and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy were due to his diabetes mellitus. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran, through counsel, contends that the examinations are inadequate because they did not properly address the remand. However, no specific contentions were raised in this regard, nor did the Veteran's attorney identify the specific examinations to which he was referring. To the extent that the Veteran's attorney was referencing the December 2020 VA opinions, the Board agrees that the examinations are inadequate to the extent that none of the opinions addressed the Veteran's conceded exposure to various chemicals, other than Agent Orange, as requested in the Board's February 2020 remand directives, and the diabetes mellitus opinion was based on unestablished Agent Orange exposure. Additionally, while the December 2020 examiner provide an etiology opinion for erectile dysfunction, the examiner failed to address the etiology of the Veteran's low testosterone. However, with regard to the January 2021 opinions, as noted in the introduction, the Board requested a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's diabetes mellitus in light of the Veteran's conceded exposure to various chemical agents, other than Agent Orange; additionally, the Board instructed that if the Veteran's bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities, hypertension, and low testosterone were found not to be secondary to his diabetes mellitus, type II, then VA opinions were requested to determine whether these disorders were etiologically related to his conceded exposure to various chemical or biological agents, to include tactical and commercial herbicides other than Agent Orange. Given that the examiner found that only hypertension was not secondary to his diabetes, the examiner provided an opinion addressing whether it was etiologically related to his active service, to include his exposure to various chemicals other than Agent Orange. Therefore, for these reasons as well as those previously noted, the Board finds that the January 2021 examination is adequate, and the most probative evidence of record, for purposes of deciding the Veteran's claims on appeal. The Board has considered the private opinion from Dr. N.B, indicating that service connection for diabetes mellitus was warranted as related to his active service. However, the Board notes that the opinion was limited to a nexus between diabetes and Agent Orange exposure, which the Board has found has not been established. The opinion did not include any discussion of any other chemical exposures. Therefore, the Board affords this opinion no probative value. The Veteran has not provided any other medical opinions in support of his claim that his current disabilities are related to his in-service exposure to chemicals other than Agent Orange, or a service-connected disability. While the evidence reflects that the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy and low testosterone are due to his diabetes mellitus type II, the Board notes that Veteran is not service connected for diabetes mellitus type II. Therefore, secondary service connection is not available on this basis, as his bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy and low testosterone cannot be service-connected secondary to a nonservice-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. To the extent that the Veteran additionally submitted medical literature suggesting a relationship between his current claimed disabilities and his in-service chemical exposure, the Board notes that medical articles or treatises can provide important support when combined with an opinion of a medical professional if the medical article or treatise evidence discusses generic relationships with a degree of certainty such that, under the facts of a specific case, there is at least plausible causality based upon objective facts rather than on an unsubstantiated lay medical opinion. Mattern v. West, 12 Vet. App. 222 (1999); Sacks v. West, 11 Vet. App. 314 (1998); Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509 (1998). The Board has considered and weighed such evidence but finds that the articles do not offer any probative support for the Veteran's claims. Indeed, the articles only provides general information. The articles do not address the facts that are specific to the Veteran's case and do not tend to establish that the Veteran's current claimed disabilities were caused by his exposure to various chemicals during his active service. Thus, the Board finds that the articles are outweighed by the opinions of the January 2021 VA examiner, who provided a thorough rationale, supported by the evidence of record, in rendering the opinions. While the Veteran is competent to report on observable symptoms, he is not competent to relate his disabilities to his active service, including exposure to various chemicals as he lacks the training and expertise to opine competently on a medical question such as that presented in the instant case. See Davidson v. Nicholson, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, the Board finds that the January 2021 VA examiner's opinions outweigh that of the Veteran. Finally, to the extent that the Veteran had previously raised a contention that his disabilities were due to radiation exposure, the Board finds that, even if the Veteran were exposed to radiation at some point during his active service, there is no indication in the record that any of his current claimed disabilities were related to such exposure. Although a VA opinion has not been requested on this theory of entitlement, there is no indication, other than the Veteran's lay statements, of a nexus between the Veteran's current diagnosis and radiation exposure, and the Veteran is not shown to be competent to render medical opinions on such complex matters. See Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (distinguishing cases where only a conclusory generalized statement is provided by the veteran and rejecting the theory that medical examinations are to be routinely and virtually automatically provided to all veterans in disability cases involving nexus issues). As such, to the extent that a VA opinion has not been obtained with regard to radiation exposure, the Board finds that such a VA examination is not warranted. See McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). In light of the foregoing, the preponderance of probative evidence of record is against the Veteran's claims for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, and low testosterone. Because the weight of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Service connection is therefore denied. Thomas H. O'Shay Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Hite, Associate 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.