Citation Nr: 22071559 Decision Date: 12/27/22 Archive Date: 12/27/22 DOCKET NO. 18-51 191 DATE: December 27, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability other than eczema is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record fails to demonstrate a relationship between the Veteran's military service and a skin disability other than eczema. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a skin disability other than eczema are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116B, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1976 until his honorable discharge in September 1980. In January 2019, the Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of his testimony is associated with the claims file. In March 2022, the Veteran was informed that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the January 2019 Board hearing was no longer employed by the Board and that he was therefore entitled to a new hearing, should he elect one. The Veteran was afforded the opportunity to be scheduled for a new hearing and informed that if he did not respond within 30 days of the letter, the Board would assume the Veteran did not wish another hearing. The Veteran did not respond; therefore, the Board will proceed. Service Connection As noted in the prior remands, the Veteran asserts that he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) or residuals of such which is related to his service. He asserts that exposure to herbicide agents, chemical weapons, and warheads in service that could have caused his CTCL. In a September 2011 statement, the Veteran argued that herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, was stored at the Schofield Barracks in Hawaii where he was stationed. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, certain diseases shall be service connected if the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 1116B and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iv) are met, even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1113; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The Board notes, notwithstanding the foregoing presumptive provisions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that a claimant is not precluded from establishing service connection for a disease averred to be related to herbicide exposure, as long as there is proof of such direct causation. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043-1044 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a diagnosis of CTCL, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran had in-service exposure to herbicide agents, and the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding a relationship between the Veteran's military service and a skin disability other than eczema, to include any other claimed in-service exposure. With regard to the second element of service connection, the Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any complaints or treatment related to his CTCL. Insofar as he alleges exposure to herbicide agents as a result of his service at the Schofield Barracks in Hawaii where he was stationed, in May 2016, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) attempted to verify the Veteran's alleged herbicide agent exposure with Compensation Service. In response, Compensation Service indicated that Schofield Barracks was not identified as a location where herbicide agents were used, tested, or stored. Compensation Service further noted that herbicide agents were developed for jungle combat operations in the Republic of Vietnam, and there were no combat operations in Hawaii during the period when the Veteran was stationed there. Compensation Service also noted that Hawaii was not on the supply line for herbicide agents; instead, they were shipped directly from Gulfport, Mississippi to South Vietnam via merchant ships. Finally, Compensation Service noted that there was no evidence that herbicide agents were buried on Hawaii from 1976 to 1978. In a September 2022 memorandum, the Veterans Benefits Administration, Office of Field Operations, indicated that there was no evidence to support the Veteran's claimed herbicide agent exposure. The memorandum indicated that the Office of Field Operations consulted the 2019 Department of Defense Tactical Herbicide Location List, and there was no evidence located to support his claimed exposure. In connection with the Board's May 2022 remand, a June 2022 VA medical opinion was obtained that noted that exposure to herbicide agents was known to increase the risk of T-cell lymphoma development and, if herbicide agent exposure was able to be established, it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's CTCL was related to his military service. This opinion, by itself, is insufficient to establish the Veteran's in-service exposure to herbicide agents. Indeed, the opinion provider acknowledged that it was beyond her purview to determine whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents. Moreover, as discussed above, there is no probative evidence otherwise showing that the Veteran had direct exposure to herbicide agents during his active duty service. The Board does not attach probative weight to the June 2022 VA medical opinion, and finds that exposure to herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, has not been established. As to the nexus element of service connection, there is no probative evidence that suggests a nexus between any other incident in service and the Veteran's CTCL. While prior Board remands included reference to both herbicide exposure and exposure to chemical weapons and/or warheads in framing the Veteran's contentions to examiners addressing a potential relationship to service, the Board notes that the Veteran has not supported his contentions with any credible evidence demonstrating such exposures. The Veteran's personnel records weigh against the Veteran's contentions, as they are absent any indication that he had training in, or exercised duties working with or around chemical weapons or warheads while serving on active duty as a cannon crewman, to include on any details working with special weaponry, as he stipulates. The fact that the Veteran's training and duties in service are documented in personnel records, but are silent to any work in or around chemical weapons or warheads, lessens the credibility of such assertions. Moreover, the Veteran may not be a reliable historian, given his recollections about potential herbicide agent exposures, which the Board has discussed above. As such exposures are not recognized, and the benefit cannot be granted on this basis. (Continued on Next Page) Absent credible evidence linking his CTCL to his military service, the evidence weighs persuasively against the claim. As such, his appeal is denied. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board James R. Springer, 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.