Citation Nr: 0922677 Decision Date: 06/16/09 Archive Date: 06/23/09 DOCKET NO. 04-07 278 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus. 2. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, status post coronary artery bypass graft, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a heart murmur, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a right popliteal artery thromboembolectomy, claimed as right leg blood clot, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus. 5. Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus as a result of herbicide exposure. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Barone, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active duty service from January 1963 to May 1966. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2003 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This matter was previously before the Board, most recently in January 2009 when it was remanded for additional development. The Board has refashioned the issues, as presented above, to reflect that the Veteran's contentions have clearly indicated that the cardiovascular disabilities for which he seeks service connection are contended to be secondary to his diabetes mellitus. Various communications and documents have been recently received from the Veteran and have been associated with the claims file. To the extent that some documents constitute evidence in support of the Veteran's appeal, these items are duplicates of items of already of record and already considered by the RO. As such, preliminary review of the items is not necessary. See generally Disabled American Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran is not shown to have served in the Republic of Vietnam during his active service, and is not otherwise shown to have been exposed to herbicide agents during service. 2. Hypertension was not manifested during the Veteran's active duty service or for many years thereafter, nor is it otherwise related to the Veteran's active duty service. 3. Coronary artery disease was not manifested during the Veteran's active duty service or for many years thereafter, nor is it otherwise related to the Veteran's active duty service. 4. The Veteran is not currently diagnosed with a chronic disability manifested by heart murmur related to the Veteran's active duty service. 5. No blood clot nor any disability related to a right popliteal artery thromboembolectomy was manifested during the Veteran's active duty service or for many years thereafter, nor is any such disability otherwise related to the Veteran's active duty service. 6. Diabetes mellitus was not manifested during the Veteran's active duty service or for many years thereafter, nor is it otherwise related to the Veteran's active duty service. 7. Service connection for diabetes mellitus is not in effect, thus the Veteran's claims for service connection for cardiovascular disabilities on a secondary basis must be denied as a matter of law. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hypertension was not incurred in or aggravated by the Veteran's active duty service, nor may it be presumed to be incurred in such service. Neither has hypertension been caused or aggravated by any service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310 (2008). 2. Coronary artery disease was not incurred in or aggravated by the Veteran's active duty service, nor may it be presumed to be incurred in such service. Neither has coronary artery disease been caused or aggravated by any service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310 (2008). 3. An acquired chronic disability manifested by heart murmur was not incurred in or aggravated by the Veteran's active duty service, nor may such a disability be presumed to be incurred in such service. Neither has any such disability been caused or aggravated by any service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310 (2008). 4. A disability related to a right popliteal artery thromboembolectomy was not incurred in or aggravated by the Veteran's active duty service, nor may such disability be presumed to be incurred in such service. Neither has such disability been caused or aggravated by any service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310 (2008). 5. Diabetes mellitus was not incurred in or aggravated by the Veteran's active duty service, nor may it be presumed to be incurred in such service. Neither has diabetes mellitus been caused or aggravated by any service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310 (2008). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 The Board acknowledges the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA). 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002). This legislation provides, among other things, for notice and assistance to claimants under certain circumstances. VA has issued final rules to amend adjudication regulations to implement the provisions of VCAA. See 38 C.F.R §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a). The intended effect of the regulations is to establish clear guidelines consistent with the intent of Congress regarding the timing and the scope of assistance VA will provide to a claimant who files a substantially complete application for VA benefits, or who attempts to reopen a previously denied claim. After reviewing the claims folder, the Board finds that the claimant has been notified of the applicable laws and regulations which set forth the necessary criteria for the benefits currently sought. Most recently, in a letter sent in February 2008, the claimant was informed of the information and evidence necessary to warrant entitlement to the benefits sought, including notice specific to claims involving allegations of exposure to herbicide agents. Moreover, this letter advised the Veteran of the types of evidence VA would assist him in obtaining as well as his own responsibilities with regard to identifying relevant evidence. See Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 183 (2002); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 370 (2002). The Board notes that this letter, and previous VCAA letters, were sent to the appellant prior to the most recent RO-level readjudication of this appeal, as evidenced by the February 2009 supplemental statement of the case. The VCAA notice was therefore effectively timely. See Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet.App. 112 (2004). The Board finds that all notices required by VCAA and implementing regulations were furnished to the appellant and that no useful purpose would be served by delaying appellate review to send out additional VCAA notice letters. During the pendency of this appeal, on March 3, 2006, the Court issued a decision in the consolidated appeal of Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 473 (2006), which held that the VCAA notice requirements of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) apply to all five elements of a service connection claim. Those five elements include: 1) veteran status; 2) existence of a disability; 3) a connection between the veteran's service and the disability; 4) degree of disability; and 5) effective date of the disability. The Court held that upon receipt of an application for a service-connection claim, 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) require VA to review the information and the evidence presented with the claim and to provide the claimant with notice of what information and evidence not previously provided, if any, will assist in substantiating or is necessary to substantiate the elements of the claim as reasonably contemplated by the application. Id. at 486. Additionally, this notice must include notification that a disability rating and an effective date for the award of benefits will be assigned if the benefits are awarded. Id. at 488. In this case, an effectively timely June 2007 mailing to the Veteran provided the notice contemplated by Dingess. The appellant was provided with notice of the types of evidence necessary to establish a disability rating and an effective date for any rating that may be granted, and this notice directly explained how VA determines disability ratings and effective dates. The record shows that the Veteran has been advised of the elements necessary to substantiate his claims, the duties of VA and his own in furnishing evidence, and the manner disability ratings and effective dates are assigned. The Board observes that the Veteran has not referred to any claimed VCAA notice deficiency, nor has he alleged any harm or prejudice resulting from any such notice deficiency. The record shows that the Veteran is knowledgeable about the underlying elements of his claims and his detailed and articulate arguments demonstrate full knowledge of the criteria necessary for him to prevail with the issues on appeal. Under the circumstances, the Board finds that it may properly proceed with a decision on the merits. Furthermore, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the assistance provisions set forth in the law and regulations. The record as it stands includes sufficient competent evidence. All available pertinent records, in-service, private, and VA, have been obtained; additionally, special development required in cases involving claimed herbicide agent exposure has been completed. The Veteran has also been furnished a VA examination addressing the etiology of his disabilities on appeal, with the October 2006 VA examination report associated with the claims file in this case. The Board finds that the record as it stands includes adequate competent evidence to allow the Board to decide the case and no further action is necessary. See generally 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). No additional pertinent evidence has been identified by the claimant as relevant to this appeal. Under these circumstances, no further action is necessary to assist the claimant with this appeal. The issues before the Board involve claims of entitlement to service connection. Applicable law provides that service connection will be granted if it is shown that the veteran suffers from a disability resulting from an injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting disease or injury in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. That an injury occurred in service alone is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Additionally, for veterans who have served 90 days or more of active service during a war period or after December 31, 1946, certain chronic disabilities, such as diabetes mellitus and certain cardiovascular diseases, are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Finally, disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury or disability that is chronically worsened by service connected disability shall be service connected. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 439 (1995) (en banc). Applicable law provides that a veteran who, during active service, served during a certain time period in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that he was not exposed to any such agent during service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116; see also Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-103, 115 Stat. 976 (2001). Regulations further provide, in pertinent part, that if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent (such as Agent Orange) during active military, naval, or air service, the following diseases 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 provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied: Chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne; Hodgkin's disease; multiple myeloma; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy; porphyria cutanea tarda; prostate cancer; respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea); Type II diabetes mellitus, and soft-tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma). Diabetes mellitus is subject to the presumption in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) if it becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). Service personnel records are negative for findings that the Veteran served in Vietnam. The Veteran does not contend otherwise. The presumption of exposure to herbicides therefore does not apply. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Since the Veteran cannot be presumed to have been exposed to herbicides during his military service, such exposure cannot be found to have occurred without affirmative evidence demonstrating such exposure. Failure to establish presumptive service connection based on herbicide exposure does not preclude the Veteran, however, from establishing direct service connection. In Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043-44 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that when a Veteran is found not to be entitled to a regulatory presumption of service connection for a given disability, the claim must nevertheless be reviewed to determine whether service connection can be established on a direct basis. As such, the Board must not only determine whether the Veteran has a disability which is recognized by VA as being etiologically related to exposure to herbicide agents that were used in Vietnam and elsewhere, but must also determine whether his current disability is the result of active service under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has determined that the Veteran's Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards (Radiation Compensation) Act, Pub. L. No. 98-542, § 5, 98 Stat. 2725, 2727-29 (1984) does not preclude a claimant from establishing service connection with proof of actual direct causation. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The rationale employed in Combee also applies to claims based on exposure to Agent Orange. Brock v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 155 (1997). Service treatment records are negative for complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The evidence of record, and specifically the Veteran's own description of this disability in his original filing of this claim in January 2003, indicates a diagnostic onset date in May 2002 for diabetes mellitus, 36 years after the Veteran's active duty service. This significant gap weighs heavily against the Veteran's claim. See Maxson v. West, 12 Vet.App. 453, 459 (1999). The Veteran does not argue the contrary. Again, he asserts that his diabetes mellitus is the result of his exposure to herbicides while being stationed at Andersen AFB in Guam. The Board finds that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange. The Veteran's personnel records indicate that he served in Guam during the war in Vietnam. However, the Department of Defense has not established that Agent Orange was used in Guam during the period of the Veteran's service. VA requested additional records relating to possible herbicide exposure from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in April 2003 but none were found. Indeed, the NPRC specifically noted "No records of exposure to herbicide." VA has developed specific procedures to determine whether a veteran was exposed to herbicides in a vicinity other than the Republic of Vietnam or along the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in Korea. VA's updated Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21- 1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section C, para. 10(n) directs that a detailed statement of the Veteran's claimed herbicide exposure be sent to the Compensation and Pension (C&P) Service via e-mail and a review be requested of the Department of Defense's ('DoD') inventory of herbicide operations to determine whether herbicides were used or tested as alleged. If the exposure is not verified, a request should then be sent to the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for verification. The specified procedures have now been completed in this case, and the preponderance of the probative evidence is against finding confirmed exposure to a pertinent herbicide agent during this Veteran's military service. A February 2009 report from the Director of the Center for Unit Records Research (CURR) reports that "[w]e cannot document or verify that [the Veteran] was exposed to herbicides while serving at Anderson [sic] Air Force Base, Guam." This report explains: "We reviewed the Department of Defense (DoD) listing of herbicide spray areas and test sites outside the Republic of Vietnam and Guam is not listed. Also, available 3960th Support Squadron unit historical data does not document any herbicide spraying, testing, storage or usage at Anderson [sic] Air Force Base, Guam." Additionally, a February 2009 report from the "Agent Orange Mailbox" of VA's C&P services provides a thorough description of detailed research using Department of Defense (DoD) resources. This report addresses several critical elements of the claim on appeal. The report indicates that "[h]erbicides and spray equipment were stowed on Guam during the Korean War (1951-53) but never used. Following the armistice, all herbicides and equipment was shipped back to Fort Detrick, Maryland." The Board observes that the Veteran did not service in Guam during or around the cited period. The report goes on the state that, "[s]ince that time there is no DoD record of any use, testing, or storage of tactical herbicides, such as Agent Orange, at any location on Guam." With regard to the possibility that the Veteran "may be referring to some small-scale brush or weed clearing activity around Andersen AFB," the report explains "there is no record of such activity with DoD and no way to know the chemical content of any such non-tactical herbicide use." The Board observes, in passing, that the report correctly points out that "[n]on-tactical herbicides with unknown chemical content are not covered by 38 CFR 3.309(a)(6)(i)." The February 2009 Agent Orange Mailbox report further addresses key documents presented by the Veteran with highly pertinent information and research observations. In this regard, the report acknowledges the Dow Chemical Investors Risk Report submitted by the Veteran, and the statement it contains regarding soldiers handling Agent Orange in Guam. The February 2009 report observes that "[t]he source for this statement (according to footnote 130) is a Pacific Daily News newspaper article from June 2003. A review of newspaper articles from that period shows only that they contain anecdotal statements and claims with no substantiation." The February 2009 C&P report further acknowledges that the Dow information states "AO handling has been measured at up to 1900 ppm in some areas of Andersen AFB on Guam." The C&P report explains, however, that "[t]he source claimed for this information (footnote 131) is a 2002 government Public Health Assessment. [C&P] reviewed this report and found no reference to Agent Orange, herbicides, or dioxin. Numerous other chemicals are listed. The report concludes that there is no health hazard from ground water or soil at Andersen AFB." Finally, with regard to the Veteran's claim of herbicide exposure from handling clothing from personnel who flew over Vietnam or were on the ground in Vietnam, the C&P report correctly observes that "there is no presumption of 'secondary exposure' based on being near aircraft or handling equipment or clothing once used in Vietnam." Moreover, the C&P report indicates that the author found "no studies showing harmful health effects from any such secondary exposure." The Board notes that the Veteran has not otherwise produced any evidence of showing harmful health effects from such secondary exposure. Beyond what is discussed above, further consideration has also been given to the documents submitted by the Veteran in support of his claim. The Board has reviewed the submitted photographs of unlabeled barrels and dead vegetation from Andersen AFB, but is unable to find probative evidence of the Veteran's exposure to Agent Orange from these. The Board also acknowledges the lay statements of servicemen testifying to their recollections or handling barrels of Agent Orange at Andersen AFB during or around the time of the Veteran's service there. The Board also acknowledges the Veteran's own statements that he witnessed the use of Agent Orange in Guam, but the objective evidence of record does not support such a conclusion. Further, it has not been shown that the Veteran or the other servicemen who have submitted statements in this case have the professional expertise to identify the chemicals that were stored and used at Andersen AFB. The Board must find that the official service department records showing no presence of tactical herbicides at that location during or around the Veteran's service are most probative. The Veteran has also submitted a packet of assorted articles and narratives concerning contamination findings associated with Guam and Andersen AFB. The documents submitted by the Veteran clearly reflect findings of toxic contamination in Guam, particularly as detected in relatively recent years. The package of documents also clearly reflects that certain individuals believe that Agent Orange and/or other tactical herbicides were released on Guam during the Vietnam War. However, including the key points addressed in the February 2009 C&P report, these documents do not demonstrate that the Veteran was exposed to a pertinent tactical herbicide during his service at Andersen Air Force Base. Much of the evidence is anecdotal or lacking in citation to objective authority of a nature matching the probative value of official and contemporaneous service department records concerning the issue. In reviewing the totality of the evidence in this case, the Board must find that the official service department records showing no use or storage of pertinent tactical herbicide where the Veteran served during the time he served there is highly probative, and probatively outweighs the documents presented to suggest that toxicity in Guam shows that the Veteran was exposed to a pertinent herbicide agent at Andersen AFAB. The Board notes that many of the documents submitted to demonstrate toxic findings concerning Andersen AFB do not reference any herbicide agents identified in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). To the extent that documents such that those featuring the findings of Dr. Szyfres discuss toxic contamination in Guam, they are probative to the specific issues in this case only to the extent that such findings may be considered to suggest that the Veteran was exposed to a pertinent herbicide agent during service, not merely that Guam may now be contaminated with various toxic substances. None of the evidence suggests that the Veteran was exposed to a pertinent herbicide agent during service with sufficient persuasive or probative value to match the negative official evidence in this case. The Board also observes, as is discussed in documents presented by the Veteran, that over a period of several years there appears to have been increased attention directed by U.S. agencies and lawmakers towards the question of alleged tactical herbicide use in Guam during the Vietnam War. However, to date, even with such directed official scrutiny of the question there remains no official documented indication of such tactical herbicide, nor has Guam been added to the list of locations for which exposure to such herbicide agents may be presumed. The Board notes that the Veteran has expressed his belief that Guam has been added to a list of locations designated by the Department of Defense as being a site of Vietnam service with exposure to pertinent herbicide agents, but this is not the case. The evidence submitted by the Veteran does not indicate any such designation has taken place. The Board observes that the Veteran's submitted documentation indicates increased attention paid to investigating whether Guam should be so designated, including information about other veterans' allegations and an inquiry by Congressman Lane Evans seeking further investigation of such allegations. No information available to the Board indicates that Guam has been designated by the Department of Defense as a site of pertinent herbicide agent exposure during the Vietnam War. Indeed, a September 2003 Department of Defense reply to Congressman Evans' inquiry is of record and expressly indicates "we have no record of long-term storage or use of these herbicides on Guam" other than brief storage in 1952. The preponderance of the evidence is against confirming that the Veteran was actually exposed to a pertinent herbicide agent during military service. The Board understands the Veteran's contentions and recognizes that the documents he has submitted indicate significant interest in investigating the possibility of pertinent herbicide agent use at Andersen AFB during the Vietnam War. However, service connection may not be based on a resort to speculation or mere possibility. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Board also acknowledges the Veteran's contention that at least one other Veteran has been service-connected for diabetes mellitus as a result of herbicide exposure in Guam. However, since Board decisions are non-precedential, previous decisions have no bearing on the outcome of this case. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.5 (listing the criteria governing the disposition of Board decisions). Therefore, the Board may only rely on the applicable law and the facts and circumstances of this particular case. Thus, having determined that the Veteran is not shown to have been exposed to pertinent herbicide agents, there is no basis upon which service connection for diabetes mellitus may be granted in this case. Neither any evidence nor the Veteran's contentions in this case suggest that diabetes mellitus manifested during service, within a year following service, or is otherwise causally related to service other than through the theory involving alleged herbicide exposure. With regard to the other disabilities for which the Veteran claims service connection in this appeal, the Veteran's claims all essentially feature the theory that his cardiovascular disabilities are a consequence of diabetes mellitus and herbicide exposure during service. However, service connection for diabetes mellitus is not warranted in this case, and the evidence does not establish that the Veteran was exposed to pertinent herbicide agents during service. The Veteran himself acknowledges, in his filing of these claims in January 2003, that none of the disabilities on appeal except for his claimed heart murmur had their onset during service or within many years following service. The Veteran's service treatment records reveal no suggestion of diagnosed hypertension, coronary artery disease, nor blood clot; in these regards, the Veteran's April 1966 separation examination report shows none of these pathologies were present when the Veteran's period of service concluded. The Veteran's April 1966 separation examination report does indicate the presence of a heart murmur; specifically "Short, early vibratory systolic murmur, functional." However, no chronic disability manifested by a heart murmur is currently shown to be diagnosed. The October 2006 VA examination report contains the medical findings of an expert professional with the benefit of review of the claims file and inspection of the Veteran. Several cardiovascular diagnoses were noted, including hypertension, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, and status post arterial embolus. Service connection is separately claimed for these disabilities. The October 2006 VA examination report does not indicate any current chronic disability featuring a heart murmur, nor does the report find that any found disability is etiologically related to or was manifested during service. No other objective evidence of record suggests that the Veteran suffers from current chronic disability etiologically linked to the noted heart murmur during service. Each of the Veteran's currently diagnosed cardiovascular disabilities are addressed in other issues in this appeal, and the October 2006 VA examination report addresses the etiology of each with no finding of a relationship to service. With no heart murmur disability otherwise currently diagnosed, service connection for heart murmur cannot be granted. Service connection cannot be established without a current diagnosis of the claimed disability. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 223, 225 (1992). Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence does not support any basis for granting service connection for a claimed heart murmur, hypertension, coronary artery disease, or blood clot. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding any etiological link to service for hypertension, coronary artery disease, or blood clot. The evidence does not support otherwise finding any current disability associated with an in-service heart murmur. The Veteran's primary theory of entitlement to service connection for the issues on appeal in this case features his contention that his cardiovascular disabilities are due to diabetes which, in turn, is due to Agent Orange exposure. As the preponderance of the evidence is against finding a demonstration of herbicide exposure in this case, service connection is not warranted for diabetes mellitus. Thus, service-connection for the claimed cardiovascular disabilities secondary to diabetes mellitus is barred as a matter of law. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 426 (1994). The Board acknowledges the Veteran's strong belief that he was exposed to Agent Orange in Guam. The evidence submitted by the Veteran in this regard has been carefully reviewed and considered. However, the pertinent evidence from official sources appears to be based on more accurate first-hand knowledge and research into the possible use of herbicides in Guam. In conclusion, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides, including Agent Orange, during his active duty service. Further, a preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus and his cardiovascular disabilities on appeal are otherwise related to his active duty service. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply and service connection must be denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 2002); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 55 (1990). ORDER The appeal is denied as to all issues. ____________________________________________ ALAN S. PEEVY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs