Citation Nr: 18141102 Decision Date: 10/09/18 Archive Date: 10/09/18 DOCKET NO. 15-26 757 DATE: October 9, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is granted. Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was exposed to herbicides used on the perimeters of Ubon and Korat Air Force Bases in Thailand during the Vietnam era. 2. The Veteran currently has diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309(e) (2017). 2. The criteria for service connection for ischemic heart disease are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309(e) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from April 1968 to February 1980. Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus and for ischemic heart disease. The Veteran asserts that he has diabetes and ischemic heart disease related to in-service herbicide exposure during his military service in Thailand. He does not claim that he developed either disorder in service or within the initial post separation year. He does not allege exposure from service in Vietnam. Rather, he testified in July 2018 that he had consistent and regular exposure in the course of his day-to-day activities at Ubon and Korat Air Force Bases in Thailand, which included physical training on the perimeters of the bases, and daily traveling on the perimeter roads. Compensation may be awarded for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Service connection is presumed for diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent, such as Agent Orange, during active service if the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 1116 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) are met, even though there is no record of such disease during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Although a veteran who served in Thailand during the Vietnam era is not entitled to the legal presumption of exposure to an herbicide agent, VA’s Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, provides that exposure to an herbicide agent may be considered on a “direct/facts-found basis” if a Veteran served with the U.S. Air Force in Thailand during the Vietnam Era at one of the Royal Thai Air Force Bases as an Air Force security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of the security police squadron, or “otherwise near the air base perimeter” as shown by evidence of daily work duties, performance evaluation reports, or other credible evidence. M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section H. Having carefully considered the evidence of record in light of the above-noted legal authority, the Board finds that service connection for diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease is warranted. Here the VA treatment records dated during the appeal period reflect diagnoses of both diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease (ischemic heart disease), which are classified as enumerated diseases associated with herbicide exposure under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Additionally, there is credible evidence that the Veteran was at Royal Thai air bases in Thailand when herbicides were used. In this regard, service records show that the Veteran was stationed with the 388th USAF Supply Squadron at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) in Thailand beginning in October 1969. Additional service records indicate that the Veteran was also stationed at Ubon RTAFB at times between October 1971 and August 1972. Although these records show that he did not have a military occupational specialty (MOS) that required perimeter base duty, the Veteran’s sworn testimony regarding his duties and activities while stationed at these air force bases in Thailand are credible and consistent with his service. The Veteran testified to having physical training on the perimeters of the air force bases and he reported traveling along the perimeter roads frequently. He further stated that his contact with the perimeter was on a daily basis Presumptive service connection based on herbicide exposure extends to those Veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeter of Thailand military bases. See M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 1.H.5.b. Because the Veteran’s credible testimony indicates (and his personnel records do not contradict) that his duties placed him on or near the perimeters of his bases in Thailand, exposure to herbicides is conceded. The Veteran has presented credible evidence that he was “otherwise near the air base perimeter,” although not as a dog handler, security policeman, security patrol dog handler, or member of a security police squadron. See M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section H. The Board finds nothing in the claims file that contradicts the Veteran’s account of his military service at the Thai Royal Air Force Bases in Korat and Ubon. Based on the above evidence, the Board concludes that, while stationed the Air Force bases in Thailand, the Veteran served near and on the air base perimeters and that, therefore, in-service herbicide exposure is conceded on a direct or facts found basis. See M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section H. As the Board has found that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in service and that he has diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease, these disabilities may be presumed to have been incurred in wartime service as due to herbicide exposure. On this basis, the Veteran’s claims will be granted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1113, 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. All doubt has been held in the Veteran's favor. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. E. Jones, Counsel