Citation Nr: 18144249 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/24/18 DOCKET NO. 16-29 613 DATE: October 25, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease due to Agent Orange exposure is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s coronary artery disease is attributable to Agent Orange exposure that occurred while stationed at Udorn and Takhli AFBs Thailand. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for coronary artery disease due to Agent Orange exposure have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from January 1966 to May 1969. This matter originally came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2011 rating decision, which denied the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, claimed as due to exposure to Agent Orange. He perfected a timely appeal to that decision. On March 2, 2017, the Veteran appeared at the RO and testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, sitting in Washington, DC. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Subsequently, the Veteran submitted additional evidence directly to the Board along with a waiver of consideration by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (2017). 1. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease due to Agent Orange exposure The Veteran essentially contends that he developed a heart condition, diagnosed as coronary artery disease, as a result of his exposure to Agent Orange while on active duty in Thailand. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). "To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: "(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) 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." Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). With regard to herbicide exposure, VA laws and regulations provide that a Veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam war (i.e., January 9, 1962, to May 7, 1975), shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (a)(3) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(iii) (2017). Exposure to Agent Orange may also be established on a factual basis for veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. The list of diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents includes coronary artery disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e) (2017). In this case, there is no material dispute that the Veteran was diagnosed with coronary artery disease in August 1998. Treatment reports from Cardiology Associates Inc., dated from August 1998 through April 2011, show ongoing treatment for coronary artery disease, status post bypass graft surgery. There is also no material dispute that he served in Thailand during the Vietnam War at Udorn Airfield in Thailand from August 1967 to October 1967, and at Takhli Air Base from October 1967 to September 1968. Service records show that he was an aircraft maintenance specialist during that time. What remains in dispute is whether his service in Thailand involved duties that placed him on or near the perimeter of the base. At the March 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he was stationed at the Udorn and Takhli Air Force Bases in Thailand. The Veteran indicated that he was a crew chief and worked as an aircraft mechanic at the bases. The Veteran testified that he recalled seeing some trucks close to the perimeter of the fence line spraying, but he thought that it was for insects. The Veteran related that he worked 12-hour shifts; he worked on planes on the trim pad as well as the flight line itself. He noted that the trim pad was approximately 200 meters from the perimeter. His ‘hooch’ was about 400 to 500 yards from the perimeter. The Veteran indicated that the only time he went off base was to go to town; he went to Takhli. The Veteran further testified that he had to cross the main perimeter of the base when leaving post. The Veteran is competent to describe observable facts, such as his proximity to the perimeter while stationed at Udorn AFB. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Submitted in support of the Veteran’s claim was a buddy statement from J. R., dated in August 2012, indicating that he was stationed at the Takhli AFB with the Veteran during the period from October 1967 to August 1968. J.R. related that their ‘hooch (barracks)’ was located adjacent to the perimeter road, and they resided there during their entire tour of duty. J. R. also noted that he and the Veteran worked the same shifts on the B-66 flight line; as a result, they spent a significant period of time at the engine trim pad located on the far North perimeter of the base. The Board finds that the Veteran’s testimony is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of such service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a) (2017). The Veteran also submitted maps of the Udorn and Takhli AFBs. The Board finds the Veteran’s testimony regarding his proximity to the perimeter while stationed at Udorn AFB credible. Thus, the evidence establishes that the Veteran’s duties placed him near the perimeter of Udorn and Takhli AFBs from August 1967 to August 1968; therefore, exposure to AO is presumed. As such, service connection for coronary artery disease, due to AO exposure, is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2017). JAMES G. REINHART Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Department of Veterans Affairs