Prostate cancer decisions — 2014

The Veteran's prostate cancer and lumbar spine disability status post spinal fusion and laminectomy were not found to be related to service, including exposure to herbicides or other chemicals.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction, finding that there was no legal basis to establish these claims given the lack of evidence supporting herbicide exposure or a direct link between the conditions and his military service.

The Board found that the Veteran's current sexual dysfunction did not begin during his period of service and was not caused by or aggravated by his service-connected PTSD and prostate cancer. As a result, the claim for service connection for sexual dysfunction was denied.

The Veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than November 13, 2009, for the grant of service connection for prostate cancer is denied. The effective date will be set as the date of receipt of the claim, which was November 13, 2009.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service-connected residuals of prostate cancer do not warrant a restoration of a 100% disability rating, and his initial disability ratings for major depressive disorder and erectile dysfunction are also denied.

The Veteran's prostate cancer residuals were reduced from a 100 percent rating to a 40 percent rating, but only to the extent of a 60 percent rating effective June 1, 2010. The Board denied his claim for TDIU prior to November 24, 2010.

The Veteran's erectile dysfunction is proximately due to his prostate cancer, which he was already awarded compensation for under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board denied service connection for both diabetes mellitus, type II and prostate cancer as the Veteran did not serve in an area where exposure to herbicides was presumed. The diseases were also not shown to be related to his military service.

The Board found no evidence of a direct or secondary service connection for the claimed conditions, including as due to herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development to determine if his service-connected disabilities render him unable to obtain or maintain substantially gainful employment.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of prostate cancer is being remanded due to the need for additional evidence and a VA examination.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded to the RO for scheduling a videoconference hearing before a member of the Board.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's prostatectomy residuals meet the criteria for a 20 percent rating, but not higher, for the entire appeal period. The preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of any higher rating.

The Board found that the Veteran's prostate cancer was not incurred in or aggravated by active service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found that the Veteran's prostate cancer and its residuals are not related to his active military service, including exposure to herbicides or chemical exposure during Project SHAD. The evidence did not establish actual exposure to Agent Orange/herbicides as a result of his service in Vietnam.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for prostate cancer, which he claims is due to exposure to herbicides during a stopover in Vietnam. The Board has requested verification of the dates and type of flight used by the Veteran during his claimed in-country Vietnam service.

The Veteran's service-connected residuals of prostate cancer are currently rated as 60 percent disabling, effective January 21, 2010. The Veteran is also in receipt of a separate disability rating for erectile dysfunction associated with his prostate cancer.

The Veteran's coronary artery disease is rated at 30 percent, effective from the date of this decision. The issue pertaining to his prostate cancer residuals has been remanded for further action.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for all issues on the same day he received a decision from the Board, effectively dismissing the appeals.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to determine if the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in Korea and whether his duties involved work in or near the DMZ. The claims will be reconsidered after this additional development.