Citation Nr: 21009381 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-65 500 DATE: February 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus II, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure is denied. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure is denied. Entitlement to service connection for left hip disability, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus II is denied. Entitlement to service connection for right hip disability, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus II is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that diabetes mellitus II began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 3. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that prostate cancer began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 4. The Veteran’s left hip disability is not secondary to any service-connected disability and not otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 5. The Veteran’s right hip disability is not secondary to any service-connected disability and not otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus II are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. 2. The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. 4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from December 1963 to September 1965. These matters come to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a decision of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In May 2016, the AOJ issued a rating decision that denied the Veteran’s claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus II, prostate cancer, as well as for left and right hip disabilities, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus II. The Veteran timely disagreed in an April 2017 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) and perfected his appeal in a December 2017 VA Form 9. In December 2018, a Board hearing was conducted. The hearing transcript has been associated with the Veteran’s file. Then in March 2020, the Board issued a remand for the AOJ to provide disability examinations that evaluate his diabetes mellitus II, prostate cancer, and left and right hip disabilities. In July 2020, new VA disability examinations were conducted. Later in July, the AOJ re-adjudicated the Veteran’s claims and continued its denial of service connection for diabetes mellitus II, prostate cancer, and left and right hip disabilities. In August 2020, the Veteran’s case was returned to the Board. 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus II. The Veteran contends that he was exposed to herbicide agents while serving at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. See October 2020 Appellate Brief at 2. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran was presumptively exposed to herbicide agents while working inside the Fort Wainwright airfield. And, if not, whether the evidence supports a grant of service connection on a direct or secondary basis. The Board concludes the evidence does not support a grant of service connection on either basis. Entitlement to service connection generally requires evidence of three elements: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship or nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (2007). A Veteran may establish service connection on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Or for any increase in the severity of a nonservice-connected disease or injury that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury, and not due to the natural progression of the nonservice-connected disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b) Entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a) or (b) requires evidence of three elements: (1) evidence of a current disability that is not service-connected; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and, (3) evidence of nexus establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. However, Veterans who are exposed to herbicide agents may obtain service connection for certain diseases without demonstrating (3), a causal connection or nexus. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). An “herbicide agent” means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and in the Republic of Vietnam from January 9, 1962, to May 7, 1975, specifically: 2, 4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD; cacodylic acid; and picloram. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(6)(i). If a Veteran was exposed to certain herbicide agents during active military, naval, or air service, certain specified diseases, including diabetes mellitus II, the Veteran will be presumptively service connected, if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a) are met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a), diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents used in support of military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era will be presumed to have been incurred in service, even if there is no record of such disease during service unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to any such agent during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii). This presumption requires exposure to an herbicide agent and manifestation of the disease to a degree of 10 percent or more within the time specified for each disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). There is no time limit specified for diabetes mellitus II or prostate cancer. Id. Lay evidence, such as a claimant’s statement, can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing the symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (2007). A lay person’s statement is competent if he or she has personal knowledge which is gained through the senses, to include what is heard, felt, seen, smelled, and tasted. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). In order to prevail on a claim for benefits, the Veteran need only demonstrate there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54 (1990). This is because the Veteran is entitled to the “benefit of the doubt” when the evidence is approximately balanced. Id. at 53. Beginning with the Veteran’s service, his August 1963 entrance exam does not note the presence of prostate cancer or any form of diabetes. He had to complete a medical history questionnaire as part of the exam; he denied ever having had diabetes or cancer. See August 1963, Report of Medical History. His service medical records do not show any complaints, tests, or treatment for cancer or diabetes. The Veteran’s service personnel records show his specialty was in supply management and, in May 1964, he was working as a supply specialist at Fort Wainwright. Then in July 1964 he worked as a supply clerk up to his separation from service. See Enlisted Qualification Record at 2. The Veteran’s July 1965 separation exam does not note any signs or symptoms of cancer, diabetes. And the Veteran denied having cancer, diabetes, in the medical questionnaire he completed prior to separation. See July 12, 1965, Report of Medical History In October 2015, the VA received a statement from the Veteran wherein he alleges his independent research found the use of herbicide agents around Fort Wainwright military base. He also suggested that symptoms he observed during and after service were related to Agent Orange exposure. He states he developed lumps on his face, which came back. And around 2 years after service, he developed hives on his back. See October 2015 Statement. The Veteran included two news articles with his statement. The first article, published in the Juneau Empire titled “Agent Orange Used Near Pipeline,” that reports people suspected the Army sprayed Agent Orange along the Haines-to-Fairbanks oil pipeline, but military records do not confirm they did. The article refers to a report prepared by Canadian tribes confirming the U.S. Army sprayed Agent Orange along the pipeline in the 1960s. It also reports the Army is trying to determine what, if anything, needs to be done. The second article is from the Alaska Dispatch, titled “Unearthed toxin at Fort Wainwright likely Injured Workers.” It reports that, in 2006, construction workers who dug through a layer of clay at the Fort Wainwright airfield observed a foul smell and got sick. The article reports that some of them remain disabled. And diagnostic testing on those workers did not identify the chemical they may have been exposed to. The Alaska Dispatch article links to a press release about the incident; the link directs the reader to a State of Alaska Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility press release which asserts that an unknown volatile chemical inflicted nerve damage on those workers. Although not referred to by the Veteran, the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (AK DEC) maintains a website that shows the location of that incident; it is located in the base airfield where all the other airfield buildings are situated. See AK DEC, Fort Wainwright Hangar 6, https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/spill-information/response/2006/14-wainwright/ (last visited February 3, 2021). It also notes the product that was spilled was an “Unknown quantity of gasoline. Other spilled products have not yet been determined.” Id. The record shows that, in April 2016, the VA sought the Department of Defense (DoD) assistance with verifying that the Veteran’s duty station was exposed to herbicide agents during service. On April 29, 2016, the DoD responded in an e-mail; the response included the statement that “[it] has not identified any location in Alaska, including [Fort] Wainwright, where [herbicide agents] were used, tested, or stored.” And “Alaska was not on the [herbicide agent] shipping supply line, which went directly to from Gulfport, Mississippi to South Vietnam via merchant ships.” The record also reflects that the AOJ found there was not enough corroborating information for the Veteran’s claims of exposure to herbicide agents to request research assistance from the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) and Marine Corps or National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). See April 2016 Formal Finding. In October 2018, a Board hearing was conducted for the Veteran’s entitlement claim. The Veteran confirmed he did not serve in the country of Vietnam or an installation near it. Instead, he spent his entire service at Fort Wainwright. He worked in one of the hangars on the airfield where he managed the distribution of supplies. He reports he worked at night. See Transcript dated October 2018 at 3-4. He also testified that, sometimes, he would go outside of the base to support Army units training in the field. He also confirmed he did not work with chemicals. Id. at 6. He confirmed that, while in service, he did not have knowledge of exposure to any toxins. Nor was he treated for cancer or diabetes. Id. at 4, 13. He also testified that, following service, he came across information that alleges herbicide agents were used at Fort Wainwright. He referred to a website, “EPA Superfund” that suggested he was exposed to Agent Orange in service. He contacted a staff of that site who informed him “Fort Wainwright had a lot of toxins.” He stated the site lists chemicals found at Fort Wainwright that were at levels that pose an environmental risk to humans. Id. at 10. He reported his wife observed hives on his back. He observed them too, and added they were itchy. Id. at 4. He also described how he discovered he had prostate cancer. He stated a doctor found a growth in his prostate, which led to his diagnosis of cancer, that was successfully treated with radiation therapy. Id. 4, 5. He described how he discovered he has diabetes mellitus. He stated, that around 1980, he started losing a lot of weight; so, at the request of his wife, he went to the hospital and discovered his sugar was 600. He spent 2 weeks in the hospital where his levels went down. Id. at 4, 7. And he testified that, due to his diabetes, he fell off a ladder and injured his hip. The Veteran stated he was home, on a ladder in his garage, and felt dizzy. He leaned and fell on to the concrete, injuring his hip. Id. at 12, 13. Following the Board hearing, the Veteran provided an article titled “Haines-to-Fairbanks Military Oil Pipeline Sprayed with Agent Orange” and reports that an Army correspondence surfaced in 2002 confirming Agent Orange was sprayed on the Haines-to-Fairbanks pipeline in the 1960s. And the Army Corps of Engineers is making efforts to determine if there is any residual contamination. The Veteran also provided the correspondence between him and the site manager for the website he referred to during his Board hearing. The website is maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the website name is “EPA Superfund.” The correspondence is an e-mail response to the Veteran’s request for more information about the hazardous chemicals found there. The response included two links to other EPA managed webpages. The first link is to a webpage titled “Fort Wainwright, AK, Cleanup Activities.” It does not list specific chemicals or discuss Agent Orange. But it does note five project areas where hazardous chemicals have been found. The relevant areas are North Post, Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO), and Building 1168; and Project Area 4 (04) addresses the Landfill, Coal Storage Yard and Fire Training Pits (FTPS). The second link is to another EPA Superfund webpage, titled “Fort Wainwright, AK, Contaminant List,” which lists over 40 chemicals deemed contaminants of concern (COC) that have been found in the soil or groundwater in or around Fort Wainwright. The site defines a COC as the chemical substances found at the site that EPA has determined pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. It also lists the area of Fort Wainwright that hazardous chemicals have been found at. One of the dioxin’s used in Agent Orange, which is 2, 3, 7, 8, tetrachlorodibenzodioxin-p-dioxin (TCDD), has been found in the groundwater of Landfill, Powerplant, FTPS (04). It was found in the groundwater and soil of North Post DRMO 11B8 (02). The AK DEC website provides the location of North Post DRMO 1168. See AK DEC, Fort Wainwright (OU-2) FTWW 072 BLDG. 1168, https://dec.alaska.gov/Applications/SPAR/PublicMVC/CSP/SiteReport/1125 (last visited February 3, 2021). A satellite view of the location shows it is a road outside of the airfield. See Google Maps, https://www.google.com/maps/@64.8416111,-147.6264826,864m/data=!3m1!1e3 (last visited February 4, 2021). The AK DEC website also shows the location of the site labeled “Landfill, Powerplant, FTPS (04).” It is located outside of the Fort Wainwright military airfield. See AK DEC, Fort Wainwright (OU-4) FTWW 038 Landfill Plume, https://dec.alaska.gov/Applications/SPAR/PublicMVC/CSP/SiteReport/1129 (last visited February 3, 2021). A satellite view of the location shows the cite is around a mile outside of the airfield. See Google Maps, https://www.google.com/maps/search/%09North+Side+of+Chena+River,+SW+of+Birch+Hill+Ski+Area,+Fort+Wainwright,+AK+99703/@64.800464,-147.9128233,1806m/data=!3m1!1e3 (last visited February 3, 2021). In July 2020 the Veteran underwent a VA disability examination for his diabetes mellitus. The examiner noted the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus type II. See July 2020 VA Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) Diabetes Mellitus at 2. Following the examination, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s diabetes is not related to his service. She acknowledged the Veteran is diagnosed with diabetes mellitus II, but she indicated the evidence in his record does not support a nexus. See July 2020 VA Medical Opinion at 2. A. Entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. Turning to the Veteran’s claim for disability compensation, the first question is whether the Veteran was presumptively exposed to certain herbicide agents during service. Here, the DoD has not acknowledged they used or tested herbicide agents at Fort Wainwright airfield and the Veteran did not provide enough information to send to the JSRRC and/or NARA for assistance. So, the Veteran has not established entitlement to service-connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. B. Entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The next question is whether the Veteran can establish service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, on a direct basis. To answer that question, the first issue is whether the Veteran has a current disability. The Veteran has been diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, most recently in July 2020. Thus, the record reflects a current disability. See July 2020 VA DBQ at 2. The next issue is whether the Veteran has an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury. The Board finds the evidence does not support an in-service injury, to include herbicide agent exposure. Nor an in-service incurrence of his disability. The Veteran’s service medical records do not show a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus II. Nor do they note complaints associated with that disease. Also, he has not asserted he was ever told he had diabetes while in service. The EPA webpages weigh in favor of finding traces of TCDD were found in two locations outside of the Fort Wainwright airfield. Those webpages are maintained by a government agency that specializes in studying, identifying, and researching the source of hazardous chemicals in the environment; thus, the EPA is competent and credible to report on hazardous chemical found in the environment. Considering the State of Alaska corroborated the EPA’s findings, the webpages were assigned great weight. The articles titled “Haines-to-Fairbanks Military Oil Pipeline Sprayed with Agent Orange,” and “Agent Orange Used Near Pipeline,” also support the presence of TCDD but far outside of the airfield: traces were found along Haines-to-Fairbanks pipeline. The articles are based on an uncorroborated correspondence from the Army confirming herbicide agents were used along the pipeline and a report by Canadian tribes concluding the Army did. Even though the DoD has not confirmed its use, the EPA has found traces of chemicals found in herbicide agents along the pipeline. So, the articles were assigned probative weight towards the presence of TCDD along the pipeline. The Board notes it has not made a finding as to the articles claims that the Army used of herbicide agents along the pipeline in the 1960s. This is because the DoD has not confirmed its use there. Nor will the Board decide the issue based on the uncorroborated evidence those articles referred to. The article titled “Unearthed toxin at Fort Wainwright likely Injured Workers” carried no weight towards establishing the presence of herbicide agents on the airfield. Unlike the other articles, the EPA has yet to confirm the presence of TCDD or any other chemical found in herbicide agents at the location the article discusses. Nor has the State of Alaska; up to now, the chemical has been determined to be gasoline. Whether or not gasoline can cause the symptoms described in the article is a matter the Board is unqualified to determine. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1991). The Veteran’s lay statements and observations are evidence that weigh in favor of finding he spent a lot of time at Fort Wainwright airfield, only; they do not support a finding he was exposed to herbicide agents. As to his presence on the airfield, he has personal knowledge of where he worked during service and the type of duties he performed; thus, he is competent to report those details. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469. Here, the Veteran asserted that he worked on the airfield as a supply clerk, which is supported by the record. See Enlisted Qualification Record at 2. Since that was his principle place of employment, he is likely to have spent a lot of time on the airfield. So, the Board finds his statement credible. The probative value of his statement is diminished by the lack of detail towards his location in the airfield. The airfield is a large area and there are several buildings inside the airfield that support air operations. Since the particular buildings and their uses have likely changed since his service, the Board was unable to evaluate his proximity to the locations where traces of TCDD have been found. Because he did not provide much detail towards his location inside the airfield, the probative value of his statement was limited to his presence inside the airfield fence-line, only. And it was assigned significant probative weight towards that matter. For similar reasons, the Veteran’s claims of supporting units in the field was too broad to assign much probative weight. See Transcript dated October 2018 at 3-4. The “field” is understood to be areas where units trained at, to include woodland areas for land navigation practice and practicing maneuver warfare. It is unlikely to include areas close to the airfield fence line due, at least in part, to the air traffic around those locations. Here, the Veteran’s claim that he supported units in the field is so broad that it includes any training area; however, it is not specific enough to include places training is unlikely to have occurred on. Without more, the Board unable to determine if he was on or near the sites where traces of TCDD was found. So, his claims pertaining to in-service activities outside of Fort Wainwright’s airfield were of little to no probative value towards a finding of an in-service injury. The Board notes the Veteran has not asserted he saw, handled, or worked near herbicide agents. The Board also notes the Veteran has not submitted medical evidence that confirms the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service. This is significant because he has not alleged to possess the qualifications to opine on the technical matter of herbicide exposure; so, his lay statements alone cannot establish exposure to herbicide agents because. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469-70. The DoDs opinion that herbicide agents were not stored, used, or transported through Fort Wainwright weighed heavily against finding an in-service injury. The DoD has access to records that show the locations DoD stored herbicide agents as well as the channels used to move it to destinations abroad. So, the DoD is competent and credible to determine whether herbicide agents were present at Fort Wainwright during the Veteran’s service. Although the news articles submitted by the Veteran contend otherwise, those articles rely on uncorroborated evidence that, as of the moment, has not been confirmed. So, DoDs opinion was assigned great weight against the presence of herbicide agents at Fort Wainwright. In this case, the evidence is not approximately balanced in favor of finding the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service. The Board acknowledges his lay assertions of working on the airfield; however, the probative value of his statements is limited to his presence on the airfield, only. Thus, his lay statements, alone, do not support a finding of herbicide agent exposure. As to the presence of herbicide agents at Fort Wainwright, the two locations the EPA found traces of TCDD are far away from the buildings he would have worked in during service. Considering he was not in any specialty that would have regularly placed him outside the airfield and near those, he has not shown he was exposed to those agents. Nor has he established that herbicide agents were inside the airfield. Moreover, the Veteran has not established the traces of TCDD found around Fort Wainwright derived from herbicide agents used by the military. Weighing against that claim is the highly probative DoD opinion. So, on this issue of in-service exposure to herbicide agents, doubt could not be resolved in the Veteran’s favor. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. Even though the Veteran has not established he has an in-service injury, to include exposure to herbicide agents, the Board considered whether there is a nexus between the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus II and his service. The Board finds the evidence does not support a nexus. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertions that the symptoms he observed during service, like hives, relate to exposure to herbicide agents; however, his statements could not be considered. As explained, he has not alleged he possesses the qualifications to opine on the etiology of his disability. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469-70. Nor is the Board. Colvin, 1 Vet. App. at 175. The July 2020 VA disability weighed against a nexus. The examiner conducted an in-person examination and reviewed the Veteran’s records; so, the Board finds the examiner was cognizant of the relevant aspects of the Veteran’s past medical history. Nievez-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2006). Then, the examiner indicated that the record does not support a nexus between the Veteran’s diagnosed diabetes mellitus II and service. See July 2020 VA Medical Opinion at 2. Although her rationale was brief, the Board was able to evaluate whether the data she relied on connects to her conclusion. Nievez-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 301. So, the Board assigned it some, but not significant, weight. Because the only competent evidence on this issue weighed against a nexus, doubt could not have been resolved in the Veteran’s favor. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. In sum, even though the Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus II, he has not established he has been exposed to herbicide agents during service or any other in-service injury. Also, the only competent evidence addressing a nexus found the evidence does not support a finding that his diagnosis is related to his service. So, he has not established entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. C. Entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. The Veteran has not asserted his diagnosed diabetes mellitus II is secondary to any other disabilities. More importantly, the record reflects the Veteran is not currently service-connected for any disability; so, the Veteran is unable to satisfy all the requirements under that 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. This is because § 3.310 requires a service-connected disability. And without a service-connected disability, he cannot show his diagnosed diabetes mellitus II was caused or aggravated by one. Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366-68. 2. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer. The Veteran contends that he was exposed to herbicide agents while serving at Fort Wainwright. See October 2020 Appellate Brief at 2. Because the Board has found the Veteran has not shown he was presumptively exposed to herbicide agents, the remaining question is whether the evidence supports a grant on a direct basis. The Board concludes the evidence does not support a grant of service connection. In July 2020, the Veteran underwent a disability examination for his prostate cancer. He reported his cancer began in 1995. It was discovered after medical professionals noticed his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were high. Since then, he has received radiation treatment for a little over a month. The Veteran reported the treatment resulted in a couple of bladder infections, with the last one occurring in 2019. He reports his cancer is now stable with no current symptoms. See VA DBQ Prostate Cancer at 2. Following the examination, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s prostate cancer is not related to his service. She explained that even though the Veteran has been diagnosed with prostate cancer with records of treatment going back to 1995, the evidence in his record does not support a nexus between that disease and service. See July 2020 VA Medical Opinion at 2. Turning to the Veteran’s claim for disability compensation, the first issue is whether the Veteran has a current disability. The Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer, most recently in July 2020. Thus, the record reflects a diagnosed disability. See July 2020 VA DBQ Prostate Cancer at 2. The next issue is whether the Veteran has an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury. The Board notes it has found that the Veteran was not established he was exposed to herbicide agents and has not asserted any other in-service injury. The Board also find the evidence does not support an in-service incurrence of prostate cancer. The Veteran has not asserted he was told by a qualified medical professional that he had cancer during service. And his service medical records do not note the presence of cancer. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s lack of knowledge of his PSA levels during service but finds that does not weigh in favor of an in-service incurrence. See Transcript dated October 2018 at 8. This is because the Veteran is not qualified to assert that his PSA levels during service would have indicated the presence of cancer. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469-70. And even if her was informed of his PSA levels, he is not qualified to opine on whether they establish the presence of cancer. Id. The examiner who prepared the July 2020 VA medical opinion is qualified to interpret medical data and determined his records do not show he incurred cancer during service. See July 2020 VA Medical Opinion at 2. Considering the examiner evaluated the Veteran as well as his record, the Board finds her opinion credible and assigned it significant probative weight against a finding of an in-service incurrence of cancer. In this case, the evidence weighs against finding the Veteran’s cancer was incurred in service. He has not asserted a qualified medical professional told him he had cancer during service. Nor is his lay opinion competent to support the claim that his diagnosed cancer was incurred during service. But the VA examiner who conducted his July 2020 disability examination can provide such an opinion; she concluded the Veteran’s cancer was not incurred in service. So, doubt could not be resolved in the Veteran’s favor. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. Even though the Veteran has not established he has an in-service injury or incurrence of his diagnosed prostate cancer, the Board considered whether there is a nexus between the Veteran’s prostate cancer and his service. The Board finds the evidence does not support a nexus. The Board also acknowledges the Veteran’s assertions that his diagnosed prostate cancer is related to his service, to include exposure to herbicide agents; however, his statements could not be considered. As explained before, he has not alleged he possesses the qualifications to opine on the etiology of prostate cancer. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469-70. Nor is the Board. Colvin, 1 Vet. App. at 175. The July 2020 VA disability weighed against a nexus. The examiner conducted an in-person examination and reviewed the Veteran’s records; so, the Board finds the examiner was cognizant of the relevant aspects of the Veteran’s past medical history. Nievez-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 301. Then, the examiner explained that, even though the record reflects the presence of prostate cancer following service, the record does not support a nexus between the Veteran’s diagnosed prostate cancer and service. See July 2020 VA Medical Opinion at 2. Although her rationale was brief, the Board was able to evaluate whether the data she relied on connects to her conclusion. Nievez-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 301. So, the Board assigned it some, but not significant, weight. Because the only competent evidence on this issue weighed against a nexus, doubt could not be resolved in the Veteran’s favor. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. In sum, even though the Veteran has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, he has not established he has been exposed to herbicide agents during service or any other in-service injury. Nor has he shown his diagnosed prostate cancer was incurred during service. Also, the only competent evidence addressing a nexus found the evidence does not support a finding that his diagnosis is related to his service. So, he has not established entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus II. The Veteran contends his left hip disability is secondary to diabetes mellitus II. See Transcript dated June 2014 at 13. He asserts that, due to his diagnosed diabetes mellitus II, his glucose levels were low and that caused him to fall off a ladder and injure his hips. Id. at 12. The questions for the Board are whether there is sufficient evidence to find his left hip disability is related to service or secondary to any other service-connected disability. For the reasons discussed below, the Board concludes that the evidence does not support a grant of service connection on a direct or secondary basis. Beginning with the Veteran’s service, his August 1963 entrance exam did not note any hip conditions. As part of that exam, he had to complete a medical history questionnaire; he denied any hip conditions. His service medical records do not show any complaints, tests, or treatment for hip conditions. And his July 1965 separation exam does not note any injuries related to a hip condition. See August 1963, and July 12, 1965, Reports of Medical History In July 2020 the Veteran underwent a VA disability examination for his hip conditions. The Veteran reported his left hip condition began in 2005, following a fall. Since then, he has received surgery. See July 2020 VA DBQ Hip and Thigh Conditions at 4. He denied having a right hip condition or pain at his right hip. He also denied any flare-ups at the right hip. Id. at 3, 7. The examiner noted the diagnosis of hip joint replacement. She also noted that her physical examination shows a normal right hip. Id. at 2, 3. Initial range of motion testing at right hip showed normal range of motion without pain noted during the exam. The same results were noted during repetitive-use testing, testing after repeated use over time, and when considering the effects of his flare-ups. Id. at 7, 8, 10. Following her examination, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hip condition is not related to his service. She indicated that the Veteran’s left hip condition stems from a fall in 2005 and medical records show a fracture occurred around that time. She also indicated that the record supported his assertion because his service medical records do not show any complaints, or diagnosis of a hip condition during active duty service. See July 2020 VA Medical Opinion at 2. As to his right hip condition, the examiner noted that the Veteran denied having one. Id. The examiner also opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hip condition was not caused nor aggravated by his diagnosed diabetes mellitus II. She explained that medical literature does not support a relationship between the two conditions. She added that there is no objective evidence to support the proposition that diabetes mellitus aggravated the Veteran’s hip condition. Id. at 2, 3. A. Entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Because the Veteran is not currently service-connected for any disability, consideration of service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 is not warranted.   B. Entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Turning to the Veteran’s claim for disability compensation, the next question is whether the Veteran has established entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To answer that question, the first issue is whether the Veteran has a current disability. The July 2020 VA DBQ notes the diagnosis of a left hip condition accompanied by manifestations, to include pain. Thus, the record reflects a diagnosed left hip disability. See July 2020 VA DBQ Hip and Thigh Conditions at 2-3, 4. The next issue is whether there is an in-service event or injury. The Board finds the evidence does not support finding there is an in-service injury. The Veteran’s service medical records do not note or describe any incident that caused symptoms, or complaints associated with a left hip disability. This is consistent with the Veteran’s own assertions. See July 2020 VA DBQ Hip and Thigh Conditions at 3, 5; Transcript dated October 2018 at 12, 13. The Veteran confirmed his left hip disability is due to an injury that occurred several years after service. Id. The Veteran is competent to report his personal knowledge of the incident that led to his left hip disability. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469. In this case, he told the examiner who conducted his July 2020 VA examination that his left hip disability stems from a fall in 2005. Generally, a person’s statements to a medical professional for the purpose of obtaining medical assistance are considered reliable. Considering he reiterated those statements to the undersigned Judge, the Board finds his statement credible and assigned it great weight against a finding of an in-service injury. Since the Veteran confirmed his left hip disability was not incurred in service, the evidence is not approximately balanced on the issue of an in-service incurrence or injury. Thus, doubt could not be resolved in the Veteran’s favor. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. So, the Board finds his left hip disability was not incurred during service. The next issue is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran’s left hip disability and service. The Board finds the evidence does not support a nexus. The July 2020 VA Medical Opinion weighs against finding there is a nexus. The examiner conducted an in-person examination, noted the Veteran’s lay statements pertaining to the history of his left hip disability, and reviewed his medical records. So, the Board finds the examiner was fully cognizant of the Veteran’s past medical history. Nievez-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 301. The examiner provided a reasoned explanation for concluding that his left hip disability is not related to his service. She explained that the Veteran’s medical records support his claim that his left hip disability stems from an injury after service. See July 2020 VA Medical Opinion at 2. Her explanation was sufficient to connect the data she relied on to her conclusion. So, the Board assigned it significant weight against a nexus. Nievez-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 301. In this case, the evidence weights against finding there is a nexus between the Veteran’s left hip disability and service. The Veteran has asserted it is not related to his service. And the VA examiner who evaluated him agrees. So, the Board finds there is no nexus between the Veteran’s left hip disability and his service. Since the Veteran has not established a nexus between his left hip disability and service nor an in-service incurrence, he has not established entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In sum, the Veteran has not established entitlement to service connection for his left hip disability under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 or 3.310 at this time. 4. Entitlement to service connection for right hip disability, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus II is The Veteran contends his is entitled to service connection for a right hip condition. See October 2015 Application for Disability Compensation. He asserts that, due to his diagnosed diabetes mellitus II, his glucose levels were low and that caused him to fall off a ladder and injure his hips. Id. at 12. The questions for the Board are whether there is sufficient evidence to find his right hip disability is related to service or secondary to any other service-connected disability. For the reasons discussed below, the Board concludes that the evidence does not support a grant of service connection on a direct or secondary basis. A. Entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Turning to the Veteran’s claim for disability compensation, the next question is whether the Veteran has established entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To answer that question, the first issue is whether the Veteran has a current right hip disability or has had one during the period on appeal. For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds he does not. The first issue is whether the Veteran has a current right hip disability or has had a right hip disability during the period on appeal. The Board finds he does not. The Veteran’s lay statements denying a right hip disability weigh against finding there is a current disability. The Veteran is competent to report his personal knowledge of symptoms due to a right hip disability. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469. In this case, the Veteran denied having a right hip disability during his July 2020 VA disability examination. See July 2020 VA DBQ Hip and Thigh Conditions at 3, 7. Since a person’s statements to medical providers are generally found reliable—and there is no conflicting information in the record—the Board finds his statement credible. The July 2020 VA disability examination and medical opinion support the Veteran’s denial of a current right hip disability. A VA examiner is qualified to evaluate and determine whether the Veteran has a right hip disability. And even though the Veteran denied having a right hip disability, the examiner evaluated him to verify his assertions; her testing confirmed he has a normal right hip. Id. at 7, 8, 10; July 2020 VA Medical Opinion at 2. So, the Veteran’s denial of a right hip disability was assigned great weight. The Board notes the examiner considered the Veteran’s reports of pain and noted he denied pain at his right hip. See VA DBQ Hip and Thigh Conditions at 4. Also, she did not find there was pain on examination. Id. at 5, 7, 8, 10. So, any contention that functional loss due to pain was not considered would be without merit. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Also, a search of the record does not reflect lay statements indicating functional loss due to a right hip condition. In this case, the evidence weighs against finding the Veteran has a current right hip disability or has had one during the period on appeal. The Veteran has confirmed he does not have one. And even though his assertion was found credible, a medical professional evaluated his right hip and found it is normal. Thus, the Veteran is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt on this issue. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. And the Board finds he has not established a current disability. Considering the Veteran has not established he has a current disability, he cannot establish entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366-68 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Beginning with § 3.303, one of the requirements under that Code is the Veteran show he has a current disability. And since the evidence does not support finding there is one, a grant of service connection under that Code is not available. The Board notes that even if the record reflected a current right hip disability, the evidence weighs against a finding an in-service injury or incurrence. As explained above, the Veteran has not asserted nor does the record reflect he injured his hip during service. See Transcript dated October 2018 at 12, 13. Also, the only probative evidence addressing a nexus is the July 2020 VA Medical Opinion; the examiner concluded there is no nexus. The Board notes the disability examination associated with this opinion was found to be adequate. As to her rationale, she explained the Veteran denied having a right hip disability. See July 2020 VA Medical Opinion at 2. Considering she confirmed his statement with her own evaluation, her explanation was sufficient for the Board to evaluate whether the data she relied on connects to her conclusion. Nievez-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 301. So, the Board assigned it significant weight against a nexus. B. Entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. As to entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310, the Veteran is unable to satisfy all the requirements under that code. This is because § 3.310 requires a current disability. And if he does not have one, he cannot proceed to show it was caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366-68. Even if the Veteran had a current disability, entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 would be unavailable. This is because the reflects he does not have a service connected disability. Thus, he has not established entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 or 3.310 at this time. Also, the Veteran has not raised any other issues nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record with respect to his left hip disability. Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552-54 (2008) (holding the Board is not required to address issues unless specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the record). The Board regrets a more favorable decision could not be reached in the Veteran’s case. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Dean, Michael S. 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.