Citation Nr: 18147713 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 17-03 596 DATE: November 6, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for Type 2 diabetes mellitus is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served as fuel laboratory specialist as part of the 635th Supply Squadron at U-Tapao airfield base in Thailand during the period from March 1972 to January 1973. 2. The Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while on active duty in Thailand. 3. The Veteran has had prostate cancer during the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing service connection for prostate cancer have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (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. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). VA laws and regulations provide that, if a Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service, certain listed diseases are presumptively service-connected. 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (a)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). A Veteran who “served in the Republic of Vietnam” between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975 is presumed to have been exposed during such service to herbicide agents. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). The listed diseases include prostate cancer. The Veteran contends he was to exposure to herbicide agents during his service in Thailand. VA’s Compensation Service has acknowledged exposure to tactical herbicides on a direct, occupational, or facts found basis for veterans with duty on military base perimeters in Thailand during the Vietnam era. See M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section H, Topic 5. VA has determined that there was significant use of herbicides on the fenced-in perimeters of military bases in Thailand for the purpose of eliminating vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes as evidenced in a declassified Vietnam era Department of Defense document titled, “Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report: Base Defense in Thailand.” Id. Special consideration of herbicide exposure on a facts-found or direct basis should be extended to those Veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. Id. This allows for presumptive service connection of the diseases associated with herbicide exposure. Id. VA’s Adjudication Procedure M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section H, Topic 5, directs, in pertinent part, that if a veteran served in the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam Era at one of the specified Royal Thai Air Force Bases, including U-Tapao, as an Air Force security policeman, a security patrol dog handler, a member of the security police squadron, or in a capacity that otherwise placed them near the air base perimeter as shown by the evidence of record, to include daily work duties, performance evaluation reports or other credible evidence, then herbicide exposure is to be conceded. Here, service personnel records reveal that the Veteran served in the Air Force. He was stationed at the U-Tapao airfield base in Thailand during the period from March 1972 to January 1973. He served in the capacity of a fuel laboratory specialist. Personnel records reflect that his duties included, among other things, inspecting and observing the condition and performance of equipment and facilities; conducting systematic sampling and testing; insuring that over 45 million gallons of fuel was issued to aircraft each month; and obtaining and testing over three thousand fuel and water samples from a variety of mobile and installed dispensing equipment as well as from aircraft and fuel supplies. The Veteran contends that in order to take daily fuel samples from five pump houses and two fuel systems, he was required to cross from the west side to the east side via a perimeter road where he personally observed and drove through the spraying of herbicides. To this point, he submitted a map of the airfield base, which shows the close proximity of his daily routine to the perimeter of the airfield base. The Board finds that the evidence of record demonstrates service connection for prostate cancer is warranted. The Veteran’s statement that he was required to travel around the base daily to take fuel samples is well supported by personnel records describing his military specialty and job duties. His assertion that this also involved frequent travel on routes that were in close proximity to the perimeter of the base, where the CHECO Report notes heavy use of herbicides, is therefore also reasonably credible. The medical evidence of record confirms that the Veteran has prostate cancer. See May 2013 private treatment record (noting a discharge diagnosis of prostate cancer). As there is probative, credible evidence that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during active duty, service connection for prostate cancer can be awarded on a presumptive basis. As such, resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the claim of service connection for prostate cancer is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran additionally claims entitlement to service connection for Type 2 diabetes mellitus, which he also attributes to herbicide exposure. The Board’s review of the claims file is negative, however, for a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Indeed, in January 2013, a VA examiner concluded, after reviewing the claims file, that there were no objective findings to support a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and a May 2012 VA disability benefits questionnaire, that appears to have been filled out by a private doctor, notes that the Veteran has been diagnosed with impaired fasting glucose; the physician there did not check any box indicating that the Veteran had a diagnosis of diabetes. It is not clear, however, whether there are outstanding and relevant treatment records that could establish that the Veteran currently has Type 2 diabetes. The Veteran should therefore be asked to submit any medical evidence showing a current diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or to identify any relevant VA or private treatment. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request that he submit any medical evidence showing a current diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or to identify any VA or private treatment relating to type 2 diabetes mellitus. Thereafter, take all appropriate action to associate with the claims file any identified VA treatment records and/or make reasonable attempts to assist the Veteran in obtaining any identified private treatment records. 2. After completion of the above, readjudicate the claim. If any benefit requested on appeal is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, the appellant and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case, and provided an opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Matthew Schlickenmaier, Counsel