Citation Nr: 18142606 Decision Date: 10/16/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 14-34 589 DATE: October 16, 2018 ORDER Service connection for diabetes mellitus type II (diabetes), secondary to herbicide agent exposure is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence of record does not establish the Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam Era. 2. The evidence of record does not establish the onset or incurrence of the Veteran’s diabetes in service; manifestation to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service; or chronicity and continuity of symptomatology post-separation. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for diabetes, secondary to herbicide agent exposure, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1116 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to July 1971, during the Vietnam Era. Subsequently, he also served with the Texas Army National Guard. 1. The issue of entitlement to service connection for diabetes, secondary to herbicide agent exposure The Veteran contends that his diabetes stems from his herbicide exposure in service. See July 2011 Report of General Information; May 2013 Report of General Information. More specifically, he asserts that he served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam Era for a period of 11 months and his duties included handling and transporting 55 pound barrels containing Agent Orange. October 2010 Veteran’s Application for Compensation and/or Pension; April 2013 VA Form 9; May 2013 Report of General Information. At times, these barrels leaked a white, jelly-like substance, which he was told simply not to touch. April 2013 VA Form 9. Generally, service connection may be established if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active duty service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In that regard, service connection may be established for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to the period of service, establishes the disease was incurred during active duty service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). In order to prove service connection, there must be competent and credible evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus or link between the current disability and the in service disease or injury. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Alternatively, service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for certain chronic diseases, such as diabetes. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). A chronic disease may be presumptively service connected if it is shown to have manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service or if the evidence establishes chronicity and continuity of symptomatology post-separation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Additionally, a veteran who served on active duty in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam Era is presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent during such service, absent affirmative evidence establishing that he was not. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6), (d). If a veteran exposed to an herbicide agent pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6) develops a disease delineated in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), it shall be service connected on a presumptive basis even though there is no record of such disease during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) provides an exhaustive list of the diseases that may be service connected on a presumptive basis and it includes diabetes. Here, the evidence of record establishes the Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes. See March 2011 VA Primary Care Physician Note; Shedden, supra. However, according to a March 2011 VA Primary Care Physician Note, he was newly diagnosed with diabetes at that time. The earliest reference to an issue related to diabetes comes in August 2010; nearly 40 years post-separation. An August 2010 VA Addendum documented that his blood sugar was high and that he would be referred to a pre-diabetes class. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) is negative for any issues related to diabetes. At the time of his separation examination, no abnormalities were found upon clinical evaluation, other than chronic low back pain, high frequency hearing loss in the left ear, and refractive amblyopia of the left eye. April 1971 Report of Medical Examination. Overall, he certified that he was in good health with the exception of back trouble. Based on the foregoing, there is no evidence establishing his diabetes manifested in service. His lay statements of record do not contradict this finding. Despite the Veteran’s insistence that he served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam Era, a review of his service personnel records (SPRs) discloses that he had a total of one year and six months of overseas service from January 1970 to July 1971 and that the entirety of his overseas service took place in Germany. DD Form 214; Enlisted Qualification Record - Foreign Service, Record of Assignments; see also February 2011 Request for Information (response to the request for verification of service through the Personnel Information Exchange System found no evidence of service in Vietnam). There is no record of permanent or temporary duty assignments elsewhere. In assessing the evidence, the Board recognizes the Veteran is generally competent to provide evidence on what is within his personal realm of knowledge. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994). Here, the evidence of record does not demonstrate he personally has the requisite scientific training, knowledge, or experience to be competent to identify herbicide agents. For this reason, the Board cannot attach any probative weight to his lay assertions that the white, jelly-like substance he claims to have handled in service was in fact Agent Orange or any other type of herbicide agent. See Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further action to obtain competent evidence of exposure to herbicide agents in service cannot be taken because the Veteran does not recall the unit he was assigned to during his claimed service in Vietnam; he has not provided any additional information pertaining to when and where his service in Vietnam occurred; and he does not claim any exposure to herbicide agents while stationed in Germany. Moreover, the Board notes the Veteran’s military occupational specialty in service during the pertinent period was as an engine and powertrain repairman. DD Form 214. Even though he contends that his duties in service included transportation of various cargo in service, his Record of Assignments indicates that his principal duties in service were all related to automotive repair. January 2011 Statement in Support of Claim. Nothing in his SPRs suggests he was engaged in transportation of cargo. While the Veteran is competent to assert that he served in the Republic of Vietnam, competency does not lend credibility. His lay statements are wholly inconsistent with the SPRs contemporaneous with the relevant service period. As such, the Board finds his lay statements are not reliable and places greater probative weight on his SPRs. See Madden, supra; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F.3d. 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Given the above, the Board also finds the preponderance of the evidence does not support presumptive service connection due to herbicide agent exposure because there is no evidence of record demonstrating in-country service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam Era. Cf. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e) (2017); cf. also Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1287 (2009). Further, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence does not justify presumptive service connection as a chronic disease because there is no evidence of record showing manifestation to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service or chronicity and continuity of symptomatology post-separation. Cf. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102 3.303(b), 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a); cf. also Fagan, supra. Finally, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence does not warrant service connection on a direct basis. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1942 (Fed. Cir. 1994); cf. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304; cf. also Fagan, supra. Aside from the Veteran’s unsupported claim that he served in the Republic of Vietnam, during which he transported and handled barrels of Agent Orange, he does not claim exposure to herbicide agents at any other time. His STRs are negative for any issues related to diabetes in service. Moreover, his lay statements do not suggest the onset of diabetes in service. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to establish the in service incurrence element. Cf. Shedden, supra. Necessarily, the nexus element cannot be met. Id. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. Suh, Associate Counsel