BVA Case 23-2415: Back

In a September 2019 decision,the Board acknowledged that the appellant had submitted a wide variety of articles and documents concerning the use and storage of herbicide agents at Fort McClellan prior to [his]period of service there, but the Board concluded that there did not appear to have been any attempt by VA to obtain any confirmation from an official source concerning herbicide agent use or storage at Fort McClellan generally,and if such use or storage occurred[,]what chemical substances were involved and the dates when the chemicals were used or stored.

In sum,the Board found, there is no official response concerning herbicide agent exposure,such as [from]the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC)or the Department of Defense (DoD),associated with the file.

In the February 2023 decision on appeal,the Board denied entitlement to benefits for diabetes,diabetic retinopathy,bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy,and CAD.

Parties'Arguments The appellant contends that the Board erred when it discussed the lay statements[and] expert[]and scientific evidence in isolation to find that he was not exposed to herbicides at Fort McClellan,instead of reconcil[ing]the different pieces of evidence into one consistent picture.

After noting that VA has not established a presumption of exposure to herbicide agents for veterans who served at Fort McClellan , the Board determined that there is no competent evidence that the [appellant]was actually exposed to herbicide agents in service.

5 Case:23-2415 Page: 6 of 11 Filed:06/28/2024 As for the August 2015 CEER compiled by the appellant's counsel,the Board found that it (1)was overbroad[,]rather than being tailored to relevant information to the [appellant's]claims, (2)mostly pertained to years before the appellant was at the base,and (3)was of questionable credibility because it was prepared to support litigation.

Next,the Board found that,even though there was evidence that herbicide agents were present in the ground at various times before the appellant's service, none of the evidence .

Similarly,the Board found that various other reports, letters,and documents that the appellant submitted had no relation to [ him ]directly.