Citation Nr: 18147454 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 18-23 063 DATE: November 6, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease, to include as due to Agent Orange exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus, to include as due to Agent Orange exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from August 1966 to December 1969. Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease and type II diabetes, both to include as due to Agent Orange exposure The Veteran is seeking service connection for ischemic heart disease and type II diabetes both as due to in-service Agent Orange exposure. Certain diseases, to include type II diabetes and ischemic heart disease, may be service connected if the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided that the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are satisfied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2018). Here, the Veteran’s service personnel records reflect that he was stationed at Camp Mukadahan in Thailand from February to December 1969 during the Vietnam Era. See 38 U.S.C. § 101(29)(B) (2012). Camp Mukadahan is not one of the Air Force bases set forth by the Secretary for presumptive service connection, nor does the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) indicate that he worked as a security policeman, security patrol dog handler, or member of a security police squadron on an applicable base. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertion that he worked as security patrol as every airman on his base was required; however, the initial matter is whether the Veteran had service on an applicable base. Lacking evidence of service on an applicable Air Force base, the question of whether he served on security patrol is moot. While the record does not reflect that the Veteran had service on an applicable Air Force base, the Board finds that further development is required as to his assertion that during his service in Thailand, he had weekly visits to Nakhon Phanom and that he also visited Ubon Air Force Base. An August 4, 1969, military personnel record reflects a request for a three-day pass to Ubon Air Force Base. Additionally, as conceded by the RO, the record reflects a medical appointment at Nakhon Phanom in February 1969. The Veteran’s attorney further asserts that once at Nakhon Phanom, the Veteran would not need permission to move around the base, including going to the base perimeter. In this regard, the Board acknowledges presumptive service connection where a veteran otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by MOS, performance evaluations, or other credible evidence; however, the record is currently not sufficient to concede in-service exposure. As a result, the Board finds that the case should be remanded for further development pursuant to VA regulations for developing claims for service connection based on alleged herbicide exposure in Thailand during the Vietnam Era. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Refer the case to the JSRRC coordinator to review the record and make a formal finding of whether sufficient information required to verify herbicide exposure exists. Attempts should be made to ascertain whether (a) the Veteran’s reported weekly visits to Nakhon Phanom between February and December 1969 can be verified, and (b) whether the base perimeters of Nakhon Phanom and Ubon during the Veteran’s service in Thailand were open or restricted to specific personnel. All attempts at obtaining this information should be documented in the claims folder. The Veteran is also invited to provide any additional information he has, including statements from service comrades, pictures, or other information that he has. 2. After the development requested has been completed, the AOJ should review the record to ensure the requested development is in complete compliance with the directives of this REMAND. If any report is deficient in any manner, the AOJ must implement corrective procedures at once. (Continued on the next page)   3. Then, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran should be furnished an appropriate Supplemental Statement of the Case and be provided an opportunity to respond. Then, return the case to the Board. T. Blake Carter Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Smith, Associate Counsel