BVA Case 14-0396: Back

He contends that the Board erred in finding that he was not entitled to a presumption of service connection under 38 U.

He further contends,with respect to service connection on a direct basis, that VA was required to provide him with a medical nexus opinion regarding whether his cancers are related to in-service radiation exposure and that a VA hearing officer failed to properly advise him that such a nexus opinion from one of his treating doctors would support his claim.

In regard to service connection based on in-service exposure to ionizing radiation,the Board found that the appellant was not exposed to radiation in service and therefore concluded that statutory presumptions of service connection based on radiation exposure were inapplicable.

Following further administrative proceedings,a VA examiner opined in June 2013 that the appellant's bladder and prostate cancers were less likely than not related to his sun exposure in service.

The Board determined that the evidence did not support either presumptive or direct service connection for the appellant's bladder and prostate cancers.

In regard to presumptive service connection based on a theory of exposure to ionizing radiation,the Board found that bladder cancer,but not prostate cancer,is included as one of the diseases specified by statute as eligible for a presumption of service connection.

In regard to direct service connection based on exposure to ionizing radiation, the Board found that the appellant was not exposed to radiation in service.

4 In regard to direct service connection,he contends that the Board erred in finding that VA satisfied its duty to assist.