Citation Nr: 0320491 Decision Date: 08/18/03 Archive Date: 08/25/03 DOCKET NO. 98-08 009 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Providence, Rhode Island THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Masterson, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from December 1942 to February 1946, and from September 1949 to September 1966. The veteran died on April [redacted], 1996; the appellant is his widow. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 1997 RO rating decision. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran died on April [redacted], 1996; his cause of death was brain metastases due to adenocarcinoma of the lung. 2. At the time of his death, the veteran had no service- connected disabilities. 3. Brain metastases and adenocarcinoma of the lung are not attributable to the veteran's period of military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Service connection for the cause of the veteran's death is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1310 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.312 (2002). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The appellant seeks entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. The appellant contends that the veteran's exposure to herbicide agents during his military service eventually resulted in lung cancer that ultimately caused his death. The Board notes that although the veteran's original claims file appears to be missing, the appellant's representative, in the July 2003 informal hearing presentation, indicated that the veteran did not have any service-connected disabilities at the time of his death. Regardless, the appellant does not contend that the veteran's death was in any way affected by previously service-connected disability. A surviving spouse of a qualifying veteran who died of a service-connected disability is entitled to receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1310 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.312 (2002). In order to establish service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, the evidence must show that a disability incurred in or aggravated by active service was either the principal or contributory cause of death. Id. To constitute the principal cause of death, the service-connected disability must be one of the immediate or underlying causes of death, or be etiologically related to the cause of death. 38 C.F.R. § 3.312(b) (2002). To be a contributory cause of death, the evidence must show that the service-connected disability contributed substantially or materially to the cause of death, or that there was a causal relationship between the service-connected disability and the veteran's death. 38 C.F.R. § 3.312(c) (2002). In effect, the service- connected disability, to be a contributory cause of death, must be shown to have combined with the principal cause of death, that it aided or lent assistance to the cause of death. Id. It is not sufficient to show that it casually shared in producing death; instead, a causal relationship must be shown. Id. Service-connected disabilities affecting vital organs should receive careful consideration as a contributory cause of death; this requires a determination as to whether there were debilitating effects and a general impairment of health caused by service-connected disability which rendered the veteran less capable of resisting the effects of an unrelated disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.312 (c)(3) (2002). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.312(c)(4), in cases where the primary cause of death is by its very nature so overwhelming that eventual death is anticipated irrespective of coexisting disabilities, there must be a determination as to whether there is a reasonable basis that a service-connected disability had a material effect in causing death. 38 C.F.R. § 3.312(c)(4) (2002). In this situation, however, it would not generally be reasonable to hold that a service-connected condition accelerated death unless such condition affected a vital organ and was of itself of a progressive or debilitating nature. Id. Generally, service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2002). When disease is shown as chronic in service, or within a presumptive period so as to permit a finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date are service connected unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309 (2002). Further, if a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally, a showing of continuity of symptoms after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be granted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all of the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. Id. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2002), if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active duty, certain diseases, including respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea), shall be service connected if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6) are met, even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied. Under 68 Fed. Reg. 34,539-43 (June 10, 2003) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii)), the diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service except that chloracne or other acne form disease consistent with chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active duty. Under 68 Fed. Reg. 34,539-43 (June 10, 2003) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii), a veteran who, during active duty, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period from January 9, 1962 to May 7, 1965 shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. In this case, the available service medical records are negative for complaints, treatment, or diagnoses of lung or brain disease. In July 1956, the veteran was diagnosed with acute pharyngitis, organism unknown. An April 1966 retirement examination reveals no complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of any respiratory or brain diseases. The veteran's service personnel records indicate that the veteran had worked as a signalman, a radio operator, a cryptographer, a cryptographer supervisor, a communications center supervisor, and a squadron training noncommissioned officer. The veteran was granted a permanent secret clearance in August 1952 and a top secret clearance in November 1955. He was stationed in Thailand from October 11, 1965 to October 10, 1966 with the 3rd Detachment of the 1965th Communications Squadron in an isolated area, specifically at Ubon Air Force Base. His last duty assignment and major command was with the 1982nd Communications Squadron. The veteran was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and the National Defense Service Medal with one Bronze Service Star. Post-service private medical records dated from September 1994 to January 1996 indicate that the veteran was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the left upper lung with metastatic brain tumors in 1994. He was also diagnosed with oral candida, steroid effects, possible small liver metastases, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia during this time. Of record is a death certificate which indicates that the veteran died on April [redacted] , 1996 of brain adenocarcinoma, which had metastasized from the lung. An autopsy was not performed. Also of record is a marriage certificate, which was received by the RO in January 1997, that indicates that the veteran and the appellant were married in September 1952. In December 1997, April 1998, and July 1998 statements, the appellant contended that the veteran was exposed to herbicides during service either in Vietnam or Thailand. She argued that because the veteran had top secret security clearance and was involved in communication work, it would not have been unimaginable for him to have performed a temporary classified duty assignment in Vietnam without any documentation of the visit. She stated that to her knowledge, the veteran never was in Vietnam. The appellant reported that she had found a single piece of Vietnamese currency, which was apparently printed in 1966, in her husband's belongings. Of record is a June 1999 Internet article regarding the testing of chemicals in Thailand from 1964-65. The article indicates that Agent Orange and other chemicals were tested by the United States military in Pran Buri and Bo Fai, Thailand. Of record is a December 1999 electronic mail message from a representative from the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, which indicates that Agent Orange was transported to Vietnam from Thailand throughout the Vietnam War. However, the representative noted that unless one of the drums was damaged or broken, contamination would be difficult to establish. Of record is a February 2000 statement from A.C. A.C. indicated that he had personally been doused with defoliant at Udorn, Thailand during Operation Ranch Hand from June to August 1967. Also submitted in February 2000 was an article which indicates that a program was conducted in Thailand in 1964 and 1965 to determine the effectiveness of aerial applications of chemical agents in the defoliation of jungle vegetation on duplicate 10-acre plots. Aerial spray treatments were applied at rates of 0.5 to 3.0 gallons per acre on two test sites, and applications were repeated in alternate two to three-month periods. Also of record is an Agent Orange Fact Sheet prepared by the Vietnam Veterans Agent Orange Victims, Inc., which was received by the RO in February 2000. The Fact Sheet indicates that trials of herbicide were conducted in Thailand in the 1960's by Fort Detrick personnel before the chemicals were given to the Republic of Vietnam. It was noted that the 309th Air Commando Squadron conducted the spraying in an operation originally known as "Hades," which later came to known as "Operation Ranch Hand." It was noted that during the 1960's, Air America sprayed defoliants for the Central Intelligence Agency in combat operations against Thai insurgents on the Isthmus of Kra. The drift of herbicides involved in these operations was estimated at an average of 20 percent. The RO received various excerpts and articles on herbicides in February 2000. Included in this submission was an article on Agent Orange exposure that indicated that the United States military used a small amount of herbicides (about two percent of the total amount) to clear U.S. base perimeters. These herbicides were applied either by aircraft, such as in Operation Ranch Hand, or by hand. In statements dated in May and June 2000, the appellant stated that Agent Orange was flown into Thailand on airplanes in drums, was off loaded, and emptied into tanker trunks and planes. She suggested that the veteran could have been exposed to Agent Orange when one of the drums containing the herbicide possibly spilled at Ubon Air Force Base, or from spraying that was done around the perimeter of Ubon. She also indicated that the veteran could have received exposure to Agent Orange when rainwater washed away Agent Orange residue from the planes while they were at Ubon. The appellant submitted an excerpt from Chemical & Biological Warfare: America's Hidden Arsenal, which was received at the RO in June 2000, which indicates during the Oconus Defoliation Test, chemical agents were applied by air in 1964 and 1965 in Thailand. Of record is an August 2000 electronic mail message from the Director of the United States Armed Service Center for Research of Unit Records. The Director indicated that herbicide testing, including Agent Orange testing, occurred in Thailand in the early and mid-1960's, specifically 1964, at Pran Buri, which was located at an isolated site in the jungle. The Director indicated that he had been unable to find any other documentation that indicates that Agent Orange was sprayed around military installations in Thailand. Of record is an August 2000 letter from the RO to the appellant. The RO indicated that Pran Buri was located in a seaside province approximately 278 kilometers south of Bangkok, Thailand. The RO indicated that chemical testing was also performed at Bo Fai, Thailand, which was located in the same general area as Pran Buri. The RO indicated that the veteran was stationed in Ubon, Thailand, which was located approximately 629 kilometers northeast of Bangkok, Thailand. In statements dated in September 2000, January 2001, and February 2003, the appellant contended that when the veteran was at stationed Ubon Air Force Base, he was performing work for the National Security Agency. The appellant indicated that due to the highly classified nature of his work, the veteran did not tell her the exact nature and location of his assignments. The appellant suggested that the veteran could have traveled to the remote jungle locations in Thailand where herbicides were used. Based upon a review of the evidence, the Board finds that the greater weight of the evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. First, the Board acknowledges that the appellant is a surviving spouse for DIC purposes. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(3) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.50 (2002). Turning to the merits of the appellant's case, the Board notes that the appellant does not contend, nor does it appear, that the veteran had any service-connected disabilities at the time of his death. Therefore, for the appellant to be granted entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, the evidence must show that a disability incurred in or aggravated by active service was either the principal or contributory cause of death. First, as far as the disabilities listed on the veteran's April 1996 death certificate, the evidence does not establish that the veteran's brain metastases or lung adenocarcinoma were related to service. As indicated above, the appellant claims that the veteran was exposed to herbicides during service, leading to his contracting the respiratory cancer that resulted in his death. In this regard, the evidence of record does not show in-service findings illustrative of in- service herbicide exposure. First, the evidence of record, including the veteran's service medical records and service personnel records, do not suggest that the veteran's service included duty or visitation in Vietnam. See 68 Fed. Reg. 34,539-43 (June 10, 2003) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). The Board notes that the appellant contends that due to his top-secret security clearance, that it would not have been unimaginable for the veteran to have served in a clandestine-sort of temporary duty assignment in Vietnam. However, the only evidence that the appellant has submitted that even remotely suggests that the veteran ever visited Vietnam is a statement indicating that she had found Vietnamese currency in the veteran's belongings. To conclude that the veteran ever visited Vietnam during service based on this statement would be entirely speculative. Furthermore, the veteran's service personnel records do not suggest that the veteran's job duties would encompass any sort of handling of or contact with an herbicide agent; nor do they suggest that the veteran had any sort of reason to visit Vietnam in association with his job duties. In addition, although the veteran was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, the Board notes that the Vietnam Service Medal was awarded not only to all members of the Armed Forces serving at any time between July 4, 1965, and March 28, 1973, in Vietnam, its contiguous waters, or airspace, but it was also awarded to all members of the Armed Forces serving at the same time in Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia, or in the respective airspace, in direct support of operations in Vietnam. See Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, C6.6 (Department of Defense Manual 1348.33-M, September 1996). Therefore, as the evidence on whole indicates that the veteran did not go to Vietnam, the appellant is not afforded the presumption that the veteran was exposed to herbicide agents under 68 Fed. Reg. 34,539-43 (June 10, 2003) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii)). The appellant contends that the veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while stationed in Thailand. Although the evidence of record indicates that herbicides were used in Thailand at Pran Buri, Bo Fai, and on the Isthmus of Kra, the veteran was stationed at Ubon Air Force Base, which was many kilometers away from these remote locations. While the appellant contends that because of the veteran's top security clearance, it would not have been inconceivable for the veteran to have received a classified duty assignment at Pran Buri, Bo Fai, and the Isthmus of Kra, again, the record does not suggest that the veteran visited these remote locations. In fact, beyond the appellant's statements, the record is devoid of any information that suggests that the veteran's job duties involved an assignment or visit at Pran Buri, Bo Fai, or the Isthmus of Kra. As such, it does not appear that the veteran was exposed to herbicide agents at Pran Buri, Bo Fai, or the Isthmus of Kra. The appellant further contends that the veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while stationed at Ubon Air Force Base in Thailand when the perimeter of the base was sprayed with herbicide agents, when a drum carrying herbicide agents leaked while on the base, or when runoff water, such as rainwater, contaminated by residue from planes carrying herbicides, polluted Ubon Air Force Base. The evidence of record does not support the appellant's contentions. Although one of the articles submitted by the appellant suggests that herbicides were sprayed around United States military installations, it does not indicate that herbicides were specifically used at Ubon Air Force Base when the veteran was stationed there. Although A.C. indicated that he had been sprayed with a defoliant at Udorn, Thailand, the Board points out that the veteran was not stationed at Udorn, but at Ubon, Thailand, and that A.C.'s alleged incident occurred after the veteran had already retired from active duty. Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that indicates that any herbicide drums had leaked or spilled at Ubon Air Force Base, or that the rainwater or the soil at Ubon Air Force Base was contaminated by herbicide agents while the veteran was stationed there. Importantly, the evidence of record does not suggest that the veteran reported to any of his treatment providers that he was exposed to herbicides during service; nor did the veteran indicate that he could not disclose any service-related health information to them due to his top secret security clearance. As such, the Board finds that the evidence of record does not suggest that the veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while on active duty. Absent such exposure, and without application of a presumption of exposure, the presumption of 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) does not aid the appellant. As such, the evidence of record does not establish that the veteran's cause of death--brain metastases of respiratory cancer--was due to his exposure to herbicide agents in service, and thus, service connection for the veteran's cause of death cannot be granted. Furthermore, other than the appellant's own assertions that there was a relationship between the veteran's terminal cancer and his military service, there is simply no medical evidence of record supporting any such causal connection. The Board notes that the veteran was not diagnosed with adenocarcinoma until many years after his separation from service. Additionally, the evidence fails to show that cancer was manifested to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), was related to any events of service, or was otherwise related to service. As such, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim--there is no causal link between the veteran's cause of death, that is, adenocarcinoma, and his military service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2002). In addition, the medical evidence of record does not indicate that the veteran had any other service-related disabilities that ultimately contributed to or resulted in his death. The record does not indicate that any of the veteran's post- service disabilities, including oral candida, possible small liver metastases, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, neurilemoma of the left thigh, basal cell carcinoma of the right eyelid, and hearing loss were related to service. Although service medical records show hearing loss in February 1965, no hearing loss was noted at the veteran's discharge examination in April 1966, and the record does not indicate that the veteran had hearing loss due to service that in any way influenced his death. As for the veteran's other disabilities, service medical records are negative for complaints, treatment, or diagnoses of these disorders, and the veteran was not diagnosed with such disabilities until long after his separation from service. Additionally, the evidence does not suggest that any of these diseases for which a presumption applies was manifested to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive periods after service, was related to any event of service, or was otherwise related to service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Regardless, the Board points out that the veteran's April 1996 death certificate indicates that other than brain metastases of lung adenocarcinoma, there were no other significant conditions contributing to the veteran's death. Incidentally, as the veteran apparently had no service- connected disabilities, there is no indication that the veteran had any service-connected disabilities that resulted in a debilitating effect and a general impairment of health to the extent that it would have rendered him materially less capable of resisting the effects of his brain metastases and lung adenocarcinoma. Furthermore, the Board recognizes that the medical evidence suggests that the veteran's cause of death was, by its very nature, so overwhelming that eventual death could have been anticipated irrespective of coexisting conditions. However, in this case, the medical evidence indicates that there is no reasonable basis to conclude that the veteran had a service-related disability of such severity as to have a material influence in accelerating death. 38 C.F.R. § 3.312(c). Consequently, the evidence indicates that there is no causal link between the veteran's terminal disease process and his military service. The Board finds that service connection for the cause of the veteran's death is therefore not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1310 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.312. As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of the appellant's claim that would give rise to a reasonable doubt in favor of the appellant, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not applicable. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). Finally, the Board acknowledges that the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000) (codified as amended at 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (West 2002)) was recently enacted. The VCAA, among other things, modified VA's duties to notify and to assist claimants by amending 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103 ("Notice to claimants of required information and evidence") and adding 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A ("Duty to assist claimants"). First, the VCAA imposed obligations on the agency when adjudicating appellants' claims. With respect to the duty to notify, VA must inform the claimant of information "that is necessary to substantiate the claim" for benefits (codified as amended at 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103). Second, 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A sets out in detail the agency's "duty to assist" a claimant in the development of claims for VA benefits. The new § 5103A provides in part that the Secretary shall make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(a)(1) (West 2002). The required notice must inform the applicant of any information necessary to complete the application. The purpose of the first notice is to advise the claimant of any information, or any medical or lay evidence not previously provided to the Secretary, that is necessary to substantiate the claim. In this case, the appellant's application is complete. There is no outstanding information required, such as proof of service, type of benefit sought, or status of the veteran, to complete the application. VA must also provide certain notices when in receipt of a complete or substantially complete application. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 2002). The amended "duty to notify" requires the Secretary to notify a claimant of which portion of the information and evidence, if any, is to be provided by the claimant and which portion, if any, will be obtained by the Secretary on behalf of the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 2002); 66 Fed. Reg. 45,620, 45,630 (2002) (codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) (2002)); see also Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). In those cases where notice is provided to the claimant, a second notice is to be provided to advise that if such information or evidence is not received within one year from the date of such notification, no benefit may be paid or furnished by reason of the claimant's application. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(b) (West 2002). In addition, 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), 66 Fed. Reg. 45,630, details the procedures by which VA will carry out its duty to provide notice. The Board finds that VA has complied with the notice requirements contained in § 5103(a). From the outset, the RO has informed the appellant of the grounds on which the RO decided the claim and of the elements necessary to be granted the benefit sought. This is evidenced by the rating action of November 1997, the statement of the case issued in April 1998, the supplemental statement of the case issued in February 2003, and a February 2003 letter that informed her of the applicable laws and regulations. Specifically, these documents show that the RO notified the appellant of the development of her claim, the type of evidence needed to prove her claim, and of which evidence, if any, should be obtained by the appellant, and which evidence, if any, would be retrieved by VA. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 2002). These documents also show that VA has provided the appellant with a recitation of the pertinent statutes and regulations, and discussion of the application of each to the evidence. The appellant indicated in February 2003 that she had no further evidence to submit in association with her claim. The Board also notes that the VCAA's duty-to-assist provision under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A has been fulfilled. The VCAA sets forth several duties for VA in those cases where there is outstanding evidence to be obtained and reviewed in association with a claim for benefits. In this case, however, there is no outstanding pertinent evidence to be obtained. The RO attempted several times, including in April, May, and July 1998, as well as in February 1999, to obtain the veteran's original claims file. Although the RO was unable to locate the veteran's claims file, the appellant's file contains the veteran's service medical records, service personnel records, and post-service treatment records. The Board notes that the appellant's representative indicates that the veteran had not been able to establish service connection for any disabilities during his lifetime. Additionally, the appellant was specifically notified in May 1997, July 1998, August 2000, and February 2003 of what records should be associated with the claims file. Although the appellant indicated that there may be certain outstanding private medical records from N.R.M., M.D., it appears that these records were previously associated with the claims file. The appellant indicated in February 2003 that she did not have any additional evidence to submit. As for whether further action should have been undertaken by way of obtaining a VA medical opinion on the question of whether the veteran's cause of death was related to service, the Board notes that such development is to be considered necessary if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but contains: 1) competent evidence of diagnosed disability or symptoms of disability, 2) establishes that the veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in service, or has a presumptive disease during the pertinent presumptive period, and 3) indicates that the claimed disability may be associated with the in-service event, injury, or disease, or with another service-connected disability. 66 Fed. Reg. 45630-31 (Aug. 29, 2001) (codified as amended at 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). In this case, the evidence does not suggest that the veteran suffered an event, injury, or disease in service that lead to the terminal disease; nor did such disability manifest during a pertinent presumptive period. Furthermore, other than the appellant's own contentions, there is no competent medical evidence that suggests that the veteran's death could be related to service. Consequently, any VA medical opinion that would be obtained would be speculative at best. As such, a VA medical opinion on this issue is not warranted. The appellant has not alleged that there is any outstanding pertinent evidence that would support her contentions, and after a review of the evidence, the Board is not aware of any such evidence and concludes that VA has complied with the duty-to-assist requirements found at 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)-(e). Therefore, the Board finds that further action to comply with these new requirements is not necessary. See Soyini v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 540, 546 (1991) (strict adherence to requirements in the law does not dictate an unquestioning, blind adherence in the face of overwhelming evidence in support of the result in a particular case; such adherence would result in unnecessarily imposing additional burdens on VA with no benefit flowing to the appellant); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426,430 (1994) (remands which would only result in unnecessarily imposing additional burdens on VA with no benefit flowing to the appellant are to be avoided). ORDER Service connection for the cause of the veteran's death is denied. ________________________________ MARK F. HALSEY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals IMPORTANT NOTICE: We have attached a VA Form 4597 that tells you what steps you can take if you disagree with our decision. We are in the process of updating the form to reflect changes in the law effective on December 27, 2001. See the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-103, 115 Stat. 976 (2001). Meanwhile, please note these important corrections to the advice in the form: ? These changes apply to the section entitled "Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims." (1) A "Notice of Disagreement filed on or after November 18, 1988" is no longer required to appeal to the Court. (2) You are no longer required to file a copy of your Notice of Appeal with VA's General Counsel. ? In the section entitled "Representation before VA," filing a "Notice of Disagreement with respect to the claim on or after November 18, 1988" is no longer a condition for an attorney-at-law or a VA accredited agent to charge you a fee for representing you.