Citation Nr: 18143134 Decision Date: 10/18/18 Archive Date: 10/17/18 DOCKET NO. 15-06 366A DATE: October 18, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, as a result of herbicide exposure is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence of record establishes that the Veteran was presumptively exposed to herbicide agents during his active service. 2. The Veteran’s diagnosed diabetes is presumed to have been caused by his herbicide agent exposure in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for diabetes have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1966 to October 1979 to include service in Thailand. In October 2018, the Veteran testified before the Board. During the hearing, the undersigned Veterans Law Judge found that the Veteran’s appeal indicated a clear disposition for a full grant of his claim listed above and that he met the criteria for VA’s one touch initiative program. To provide a response to the Veteran’s appeal immediately after his hearing, the transcript of the hearing is not yet associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, as a result of herbicide exposure Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, the so-called “nexus” requirement. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for certain diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents, including diabetes, even though there is no record of such disease during service, if they manifest to a compensable degree any time after service, in a Veteran who had active military, naval, or air service for at least 90 days, during the period beginning on January 9, 1962 and ending on May 7, 1975, in the Republic of Vietnam, including the waters offshore, and other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in Vietnam. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(e), 3.313. This presumption may be rebutted by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. § 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. VA has determined that there was significant use of herbicides on the fenced in perimeters of military bases in Thailand intended to eliminate vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes. Therefore, when herbicide related claims from veterans with Thailand service are received, VA is instructed to evaluate the service treatment and service personnel records to determine whether a Veteran’s service activities involved duty on or near the perimeter of the military base where that Veteran was stationed. 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. 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 served near the air base perimeter, as shown by MOS (military occupational specialty), performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, then herbicide agent exposure should be acknowledged on a facts found or direct basis. However, this applies only during the Vietnam era, from February 28, 1961 to May 7, 1975. VA is thus directed that if evidence shows that a veteran performed duties along the military base perimeter, herbicide agent exposure should be acknowledged on a facts found or direct basis. The Veteran asserts that his diabetes is due to exposure to herbicide agents while serving in Thailand. The Veteran’s VA treatment records shows that he has been diagnosed with diabetes type II. The Veteran’s military personnel records and testimony establish that he served on the Air Force Base in Ubon Thailand. The Board notes that he was a munitions specialist, and he credibly testified on October 2018 that his job involved picking up ammunition outside of the base and depositing it at the onbase ammunition dump which was located approximately 20-50 feet from the perimeter of the base and was an open air facility. The Veteran also testified that he was frequently in and around the base perimeter for smoke breaks, to drop the ammunition, and to exit and enter the base (which he did daily to make his ammunition runs). The Veteran recalled there being no vegetation in or around the fencing because of herbicides being used to control the plants. Given his credible testimony about his frequent presence in close proximity to the base perimeter, the Board concludes that the Veteran should be presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents during his military service, and his diabetes mellitus is thus considered to be presumptively related to this in-service exposure. As noted above, when a Veteran is diagnosed with diabetes and is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents during service in Thailand, service connection will be granted unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, which is not present here. As such, the criteria for service connection for diabetes have been met, and the Veteran’s claim is granted. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Dworkin, Associate Counsel