Citation Nr: 18141162 Decision Date: 10/09/18 Archive Date: 10/09/18 DOCKET NO. 16-06 924 DATE: October 9, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1968 to January 1972. The Veteran contends that service connection for diabetes mellitus is warranted due to exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand. In a statement received in August 2013, the Veteran wrote that he did two tours of duty in Thailand and that his living quarters at U-Tapao Air Force Base were not far from the airplane runways, where there was a smell of chemicals. He wrote that while stationed at Korat Air Force Base, he would travel by bus to work and saw chemicals being sprayed to keep foliage around the perimeter of the case clear. He wrote that there was also dead foliage around his living quarters and that when he travelled to town, he saw airmen with a mist of orange spray around them which would make his eyes water. In June 2014, he wrote that he could see the mist of herbicide spray when he was in Thailand and that he had to travel to a Relay Station which exposed him to the herbicide spray off base. Diabetes mellitus may be presumed to have been incurred in service when a Veteran has been exposed, or may be presumed to have been exposed, to herbicide agents, such as Agent Orange, in service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.307(d)(1), 3.309(e). VA has determined that there was use of herbicides along the fenced-in perimeters of military bases in Thailand intended to eliminate vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes. Special consideration of herbicide exposure on a facts-found basis is extended to those veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. The majority of troops in Thailand during the Vietnam era were stationed at the Royal Thai Air Force Bases of U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang. See, Guidance provided in the VA Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1, IV.ii.H.5.b. If a veteran served on one of these air bases as a security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of a security police squadron, or otherwise near the air base perimeter, as shown by occupational specialty, performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, then herbicide exposure should be acknowledged on a facts-found or direct basis. Id. The Veteran’s personnel records show that he was stationed at Korat Air Force Base in Thailand from January 1971 to January 1972, where his duty position was admin clerk. A performance report for the Veteran from July 1971 shows that he was working as an administrative specialist with an Automatic Digital Network Switching Center, where he was responsible for maintenance of the operational file of publications, prepared communications such as letters and messages, and maintained files. This evidence indicates that the Veteran did not hold job which have been acknowledged to involve duties on the perimeter of the base. VA procedures require, however, that even if a veteran did not hold such a position, if he has provided information regarding the dates, location, and nature of his exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand, the case must be referred to the Joint Services Records Research Center coordinator to make a formal finding that sufficient information required to verify herbicide exposure does not exist. Id. The case must then be adjudicated on a facts-found basis regarding whether the evidence indicates that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents in service. As it does not appear that the Veteran’s case has yet been referred to the Joint Services Records Research Center coordinator for such a finding to be made, the case is remanded for appropriate action. Additionally, while the evidence only shows that the Veteran was stationed at Korat Air Force Base from 1971-1972, he has also asserted that he was stationed at U-Tapao Air Force Base from September 1969 to March 1970. The Veteran’s Chronological Listing of Service in his personnel records shows that he was stationed at Carswell Air Force Base in Texas from August 1968 to January 1971. Nevertheless, the Board will also request that an attempt be made to determine whether the Veteran was also in Thailand during this period, and whether he had exposure to herbicide agents during this time. Even if the Veteran does not qualify for a presumption of exposure to herbicides, he may still establish service connection with proof of actual direct causation. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Veteran has provided lay statements describing his direct exposure to herbicides agents in service, which he contends caused his currently diagnosed diabetes mellitus. VA should therefore obtain a medical opinion regarding the possible nexus between his claimed exposure to herbicides and diabetes mellitus. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and inform him to provide any additional information or evidence regarding the exact dates, location, and nature of his exposure to herbicide agents in service. He is also requested to provide evidence verifying his service at U-Tapao Air Force Base from September 1969 to March 1970, as his service personnel records reflect service at Carswell Air Force Base, and not U-Tapao. 2. Contact the Joint Services Records Research Center coordinator and any other appropriate organization to obtain additional information regarding the Veteran’s service and duties while stationed at Korat Air Force Base in Thailand from January 1971 to January 1972 and any possible service at U-Tapao Air Force Base from September 1969 to March 1970. Request that they attempt to verify or determine the likely extent of any exposure to herbicides while stationed there. This should include a discussion or evidence of any frequent travel the Veteran reported having to perform in order to get to Relay Stations where he had additional duties. After a response is received, the Veteran must be notified of the response and of any further actions that will be taken with respect to the claim. 3. Obtain a VA medical opinion from a physician addressing the likely etiology of the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus. The physician must be provided access to all files in Veteran’s VBMS and Virtual VA/Legacy files, and the physician must specify in the report that these files have been reviewed. Following a review of the files the reviewing physician is address whether it is at least as likely as not (is there a 50/50 chance) that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus had its onset during or was otherwise caused by his service, including his potential exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicide agents while serving in Thailand. The physician must discuss the Veteran’s lay statements that his job as an administrative specialist required him to travel to Relay Stations through areas where he could see herbicide spray and dead foliage. A complete and fully explanatory rationale must be provided for any opinion offered. If any opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts, or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner, i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training. DEREK R. BROWN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mary E. Rude, Counsel