This Titan II Veteran cancer victim was a BMAT and later a MCCC. He died of Multiple myeloma cancer and his wife was carrying on his fight with the VA.
Please read all the information I could obtain on the W53 warhead and Gama rays “ionizing radiation”.
From Wikipedia:
Multiple myeloma (from Greek myelo-, bone marrow), also known as plasma cell myeloma or Kahler's disease (after Otto Kahler), is a cancer of plasma cells, a type of white blood cell normally responsible for producing antibodies. In multiple myeloma, collections of abnormal plasma cells accumulate in the bone marrow, where they interfere with the production of normal blood cells. Most cases of myeloma also feature the production of a paraprotein—an abnormal antibody which can cause kidney problems. Bone lesions and hypercalcemia (high calcium levels) are also often encountered.
.
Citation Nr: 9827331
Decision Date: 09/14/98 Archive Date: 09/17/98
DOCKET NO. 96-27 057 ) DATE
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in No. Little
Rock, Arkansas
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection, on an accrued basis, for multiple myeloma as secondary to exposure to ionizing radiation, as secondary to exposure to Agent Orange, or otherwise.
2. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran’s death as secondary to exposure to ionizing radiation, as secondary to exposure to Agent Orange, or otherwise.
3. Entitlement to Dependents’ Educational Assistance benefits.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
David Wulf, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran, who died in August 1995, served on active duty from October 1966 until June 1992. The appellant in this matter is the veteran’s widow.
This appeal arises from a March 1996 rating decision rendered by the Little Rock, Arkansas Regional Office (RO). By this decision, the RO declined to award service connection, apparently on an accrued basis, for “multiple myeloma as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation.” Also by this decision, the RO denied service connection for the cause of the veteran’s death and denied eligibility for Dependents’ Educational Assistance benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. Chapter 35. In rendering its decision, the RO observed that the veteran’s death had been caused by multiple myeloma. The RO observed also that, although multiple myeloma is among the diseases for which service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.309 and 3.311 where a veteran has participated in a “radiation-risk activity” or has otherwise been exposed to ionizing radiation during service, there existed no evidence to suggest that the veteran had received inservice exposure to ionizing radiation. The RO also noted that the veteran had received no treatment for multiple myeloma during service.
REMAND
The appellant contends that the veteran was exposed to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, to the herbicide Agent Orange, and to a host of chemical agents (including, but not limited to, nitrogen tetroxide, methylnamylketone, trichlorethylene, diesel fuel oil, and mustard gas) during his period of active service. She contends further that these exposures caused the veteran to develop the chronic myelocytic leukemia from which he died two-and-a-half years after his separation from service. The appellant has advised that the veteran’s exposure to radiation and to various chemicals came as a result of his duties as a Ballistic Missile Technician and later as a Crew Commander for an ICBM site. In the course of these duties, the appellant has advised, the veteran was exposed to radiation. She has advised also that, as a result especially of the veteran’s extensive work with the problem-ridden Titan II Missile, the veteran was regularly exposed, by means of vapor leaks, to a variety of chemical agents. Further, the appellant has indicated that, in the course of his duties as Disaster Preparedness Officer, the veteran would operate radiation-detection equipment that, itself, caused the veteran to be exposed to certain non-ionizing (or perhaps ionizing) radiation. The appellant has also indicated that the veteran was on site for the explosion (and resulting fire) of a KC-10 refueling tanker plane that had 63,000 pounds of jet fuel on board. The veteran was, accordingly, exposed to this jet fuel, most of which was, according to the appellant, carcinogenic. Finally, the appellant has indicated that,while the veteran was stationed at Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas, he was exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange(and perhaps to other chemicals) through fumes and through improperly-disposed waste that escaped from a nearby chemical plant that manufactured Agent Orange.
The appellant has argued, and has submitted medical evidence in support of the proposition, that, not only was the veteran’s cancer caused by his inservice exposure to radiation, Agent Orange, and/or various chemical agents, but that such cancer, notwithstanding its actual cause, had its incurrence during the veteran’s period of active service. Indeed, the appellant has submitted medical evidence attesting to the relatively long latency period generally associated with multiple myeloma and has argued that, in view of the length of the latency period and in view of the fact that the veteran’s cancer was diagnosed at a relatively advanced stage (only seven months prior to death and only two-and-a-half years after his separation from active service), it is highly likely that the veteran’s cancer had its onset during service.
The Board observes that, in view of the nature of the appellant’s claim, it will be necessary for the RO to attempt to obtain the veteran’s terminal hospital records as well as all other potentially probative medical evidence, including all records of medical treatment the veteran underwent after leaving service.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this case is REMANDED
for the following:
1. The RO should ask the appellant whether she knows of any additional
treatment records or other evidence that might bear upon the etiology of the multiple myeloma that constituted the cause of the veteran’s death. Specifically, the appellant should be asked to specify all medical treatment (for any condition) received by the veteran after his separation from service and, if possible, to provide records of such treatment or sources from which such records might be obtained. Additionally, the appellant may wish to submit additional documentation concerning the veteran’s alleged exposure to radiation, to Agent Orange, or to other chemical agents. Records concerning the veteran’s
actual exposure in these regards or concerning his actual presence at or participation in the incidents from which exposure is alleged would be of specific interest in this regard. Additionally, the appellant may wish to provide further information concerning the veteran’s in service or post-service symptomatology or other information that might bear upon a determination that the veteran’s cancer had its onset during service. The RO should endeavor to obtain any additional evidence (paying special attention to obtaining any post-service treatment records) specified by the veteran.
2. The RO should contact the Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland Air Force Base (and any other appropriate organization, including the National Personnel Records Center) and should ask that it provide all records associated with the veteran’s terminal hospitalization at such facility as well as any other treatment records it may have for the veteran.
3. The RO should contact the veteran’s service department and request that it provide any additional service personnel records it may have for the veteran.
4. Following completion of the above-referenced development, the RO should undertake to develop the appellant’s claim in accordance with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a)(iii) (1997),beginning with a determination of the amount of any radiation dose to which the veteran may have been exposed during service. In this regard, the RO should
contact the appropriate source(s) listed in the January 26, 1996 letter from the Department of the Air Force Radiation Dosimetry, Historical Records Section,Brooks Air Force Base. All such records should then be forwarded to VA’s Under Secretary for Health for preparation of a dose estimate.
5. Finally, the RO should adjudicate, under all applicable regulatory criteria, the appellant’s claim for service connection, on an accrued basis, for multiple myeloma as secondary to exposure to ionizing radiation, as secondary to exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicide agents, or otherwise as well as her claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran’s death as secondary to exposure to ionizing radiation, as secondary to exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicide agents, or otherwise. Additionally, the RO should adjudicate the appellant’s claim of eligibility for Dependents’ Educational Assistance
Benefits. If all benefits (with respect to any of the appellant’s claims) are not granted, the case, upon completion of the usual adjudicative procedures, should be returned to the Board for further review.
6. This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals or by the United States Court of Veterans Appeals for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans’ Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1998) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA’s ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03.
NANCY I. PHILLIPS
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1997).
- 2 -
We do not know the outcome of this case. If anyone knows please email me.