Citation Nr: 18148044 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/06/18 DOCKET NO. 16-42 687 DATE: November 6, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II (DM), to include as due to exposure to herbicides, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was stationed at U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB), Thailand, between February 1971 and January 1973; however, the Veteran’s air service did not include visitation to the Republic of Vietnam or its waterways. 2. The Veteran has not been shown to have been exposed to herbicide agents during service in Thailand. 3. The most probative evidence of record indicates that DM was not present in service or until many years thereafter, and is not otherwise related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for DM have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active air service from September 1967 to April 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. Service Connection – DM The Veteran has asserted that his DM resulted from his in-service exposure to herbicides while stationed at U-Tapao RTAFB from February 1971 to January 1973. Specifically, he asserted that while he was serving in U-Tapao, he frequently walked around the perimeter for exercise and walked by the perimeter to have dinner, play golf, and visit tourist attractions and local shops outside the base. He stated that the area was heavily deforested by herbicides. Additionally, a fellow service member recalled that the Veteran frequently walked near the perimeter and walked or drove by the perimeter to relax, train, or engage in activities outside of the base. A review of the Veteran’s service records confirms that he served at U-Tapao RTAFB between February 1971 and January 1973 as a navigator in support of the 2nd Bomb Squadron combat missions. VA has determined that there was significant use of non-tactical (commercial) herbicides on the fenced-in perimeters of military bases in Thailand for base security purposes, as evidenced in a declassified Vietnam era Department of Defense (DoD) document titled “Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report: Base Defense in Thailand.” Consideration of herbicide exposure on a presumptive basis has been extended to those Veterans whose military occupational specialty or unit duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. However, the Board notes that the Veteran has neither claimed having served as security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of a security police squadron, nor has he indicated that he otherwise served near the air base perimeter. Further, VA has determined that there are no presumptions based on exposure to commercial herbicides. To the extent the Veteran was exposed to commercial herbicides in Thailand, his exposure risk would be similar to exposure to the commercial herbicides sold and used in the United States. Additionally, the Veteran is not considered competent to distinguish between tactical and commercial herbicides. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011). Additionally, according to a VA memorandum, the DoD’s list of herbicides usage and test sites outside Vietnam indicated only that limited testing of tactical herbicides was conducted in Thailand from April 2, 1964, to September 8, 1964. Specifically, the location identified was the Pranburi Military Reservation associated with the Replacement Training Center of the Royal Thai Army, near Pranburi, Thailand. The Board notes that the Veteran has not contended that he was ever involved in tests of tactical herbicides used at the Pranburi Military Reservation, and the VA memorandum notes that other than testing at this location, tactical herbicides were not used or stored in Thailand. Further, this location was not near any U.S. military installation or RTAFB, to include U-Tapao RTAFB. VA has acknowledged that some modified RANCH HAND aircrafts flew insecticide missions in Thailand from August 1963 to September 1963 and in October 1966. However, the Veteran was not in Thailand in 1963 or 1966. The Board concludes that the Veteran has not established an adequate factual foundation for establishing the Veteran’s exposure to herbicides and any additional development would be futile. Therefore, exposure to herbicide agents is not presumed and service connection for DM, on a presumptive basis, is not warranted. Nonetheless, the regulations governing presumptive service connection for herbicide exposure do not preclude the Veteran from establishing service connection with proof of actual direct causation. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (1994). Service treatment records are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or diagnosis of DM while the Veteran was in active service, including the urinalysis results being negative for both albumin and sugar. As such, there is no competent or credible evidence of an in-service manifestation of DM. Instead, the Veteran’s DM first manifested many years following service in November 2013. The passage of time between discharge from active service and the medical documentation of a claimed disability is a factor that tends to weigh against a claim for service connection. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Moreover, the Veteran has not expressed any relationship to service other than herbicide exposure. In addition, post-service treatment records do not suggest that there is a relationship between the Veteran’s DM and service. Thus, based upon the cumulative record, the Board concludes that the Veteran’s DM did not manifest in service and that there is no nexus to service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. In sum, exposure to herbicides has not been established, the Veteran has not contended nor does the evidence show that the Veteran’s DM was otherwise related to service, and DM was not present to a compensable degree within one year of the Veteran’s separation from active service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to service connection for DM is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Ware, Associate Counsel