BVA9500743 DOCKET NO. 93-07 124 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Diego, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a pulmonary disability secondary to exposure to asbestos. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Military Order of the Purple Heart WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Patrick J. Costello, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from January 1951 to December 1952. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter the Board) on appeal from an August 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), in San Diego, California, which denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a pulmonary condition secondary to exposure to asbestos. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he had nearly two years of asbestos exposure while in the Army when working as an ammunition loader and living in Quonset huts, claiming that the ammunition boxes and the Quonset huts were insulated with asbestos. Although the veteran concedes that his 17 year post-service exposure may have been a factor in the development of his asbestosis, he nevertheless also contends that he sustained his initial exposure while in service, arguing that this exposure is etiologically significant in the development of his asbestosis. Therefore, he avers that service connection for asbestosis is warranted. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran has presented a well-grounded claim, and all evidence necessary for an equitable adjudication has been obtained by the RO. 2. The veteran worked in construction for approximately six years prior to service and for many years subsequent to service until he reinjured his back in 1972; such work involved considerable exposure to asbestos. 3. The veteran has been diagnosed with pulmonary asbestosis. 4. There is no affirmative evidence to demonstrate either that the veteran was exposed to asbestos-containing materials during his two years of active military service or, if he had been so exposed, that it was this exposure which resulted in asbestosis. CONCLUSION OF LAW An asbestos-related lung disease was not incurred in or aggravated by military service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In accordance with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991), and Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78 (1990), the appellant has presented a well-grounded claim. The facts relevant to this appeal have been properly developed and the obligation of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to assist the veteran in the development of his claim has been satisfied. Id. In order to establish service connection for asbestosis, it must be shown that the disorder was present during service or, if not shown during service, then shown that the disorder manifested after service was, in fact, incurred in service. In the instant case, this requires evidence that the veteran does, in fact, have an asbestos-related lung disease, and that it is the result of asbestos exposure during service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1994). We note that the veteran has submitted into evidence a questionnaire he completed which reveals the veteran's 17 year post-service employment history, noted to be significant for substantial asbestos exposure. Worksheet for Answers to Certain Defendants' Interrogatories, undated. Private medical evidence is also of record. Based on this history, along with reports of x-ray examination and pulmonary function testing, it was concluded that the veteran suffers from pulmonary asbestosis and early intraparenchymal disease. Office Evaluation Notes from Dr. A. J. Cuomo, September 22, 1992. Dr. Cuomo reported that the veteran worked from 1953 until 1960 and from 1964 until an injury in 1972 in the field of house insulation, with considerable exposure to asbestos. The veteran has met the initial burden of showing that he has the disability for which he is claiming compensation. However, this report does not indicate that the claimed inservice exposure was an etiological factor in the development of the currently assessed asbestosis. Our review of the record indicates that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the veteran was actually exposed during service to a material containing asbestos, or that such a claimed exposure, even if demonstrated, could have been etiologically significant in the development of asbestosis, especially in light of a 17 year work history significant for such exposure. The veteran's Form DD 214 notes pre-service employment as a laborer in construction from 1945 to 1951. The veteran was inducted into service in January 1951 at Camp Carson, CO. Service medical records show dental treatment in July 1951 at Ft. Lewis, WA. In April and May 1952 the veteran was treated at Eielson AFB in Alaska. In August 1952, the veteran completed a Report of Medical History while at Camp Carson, CO. As noted, the veteran has claimed inservice exposure on two occasions, the first at Ft. Lewis when he unloaded ammunition that was reportedly lined with "asbestos slate"; and the second when he lived in Alaska in a Quonset hut which he claims was lined with torn and ripped asbestos. In evaluating these contentions for credibility and reliability, we note that the veteran has not submitted any independent, objective evidence to corroborate his identification of the ammunition boxes' insulation as containing asbestos. We note also that the veteran is relying on a recollection of his observations which occurred nearly 40 years ago, and the accuracy of so distant a memory is questionable. Therefore, we find no objective verification confirming either the presence of asbestos during service, as claimed, or that the veteran was exposed to it as described. Although the veteran avers that the claimed inservice exposure could be an etiologically significant factor in the development of asbestosis, notwithstanding the substantial post-service exposure, he does not provide any objective evidence, such as a medical opinion not based on self-serving statements by the veteran, to support this contention. In fact, as noted above, the evaluation by Dr. Cuomo only implicates any pre-employment exposure in the development of the veteran's asbestosis based on the history provided by the veteran, not independent confirmation of said exposure. In conclusion, we find that the preponderance of evidence is against the veteran's claim for service connection for asbestosis. The veteran's unsubstantiated contention with respect to his asbestos exposure during service has very little probative value in that it is a remote recollection, totally unsupported by any objective evidence, and the record lacks clinical verification that such exposure, as alleged, is etiologically significant in light of the 17 years of asbestos exposure the veteran sustained after his discharge from service. Accordingly, service connection for an asbestos-related lung disease is not warranted. ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an asbestos-related lung disease is denied. BETTINA S. CALLAWAY Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.