Citation Nr: 18146313
Decision Date: 10/31/18	Archive Date: 10/31/18

DOCKET NO. 16-39 075
DATE:	October 31, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus also claimed as due to Agent Orange exposure is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active duty service in the U.S. Air Force from March 1969 to March 1989. 
The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for diabetes mellitus. He claims that his disability is due to his service to include Agent Orange exposure while serving over Vietnam. His also claims he was exposed to agents including Agent Orange through his duties as an aircraft maintenance officer which required inspection of aircraft, validating repairs of aircraft and flying on aircrafts that carried or employed those chemicals. 
The Veteran’s personnel records show that he had over four years of foreign service and that he served at Kadena Air Force Base, Okinawa. His DD-214 establishes his being in the Air Force during the Vietnam era. The Veteran does not contend, and the evidence does not show, that he stepped foot on the land mass of Vietnam or was in qualifying waters. Rather, the Veteran asserts that he served “over Vietnam” as an air maintenance officer. 
The Veteran claims that he was on, in and around aircraft that transported and disbursed Agent Orange. According to 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(v), an individual who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which the individual concerned regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during Vietnam era shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide. In light of the above, the Board finds that a remand is warranted to determine whether the Veteran maintained C-123 aircrafts known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam era.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Obtain and associate with the record any outstanding private and VA treatment records.
2. Undertake any development necessary to determine whether the Veteran regularly and repeatedly maintained C-123 aircrafts known to have sprayed herbicide agents during the Vietnam era. 






(continued on next page)

3. Thereafter, readjudicate the claim.  If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative, if any, a supplemental statement of the case and afford an appropriate period of time to respond. 


 
T. MAINELLI
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	T.S. Willie