Citation Nr: 18149641 Decision Date: 11/14/18 Archive Date: 11/13/18 DOCKET NO. 13-08 925 DATE: November 14, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to nonservice-connected death pension benefits is remanded. Entitlement to accrued benefits is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran died in June 2011 due to myocardial ischemia. He was not service connected for any disabilities at the time of his death. 2. The Veteran’s myocardial ischemia was not incurred during service or within one year of separation and is not otherwise etiologically related to active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1310; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.312. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1973 to April 1976. The Veteran died in June 2011 and the appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2011 decision. The issue of entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death was previously before the Board in April 2015. 1. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death The Veteran died in June 2011. The Report of Death of an American Citizen Abroad lists the cause of death as myocardial ischemia. The appellant contends that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while serving in Thailand. In the instance of a Veteran’s death, certain enumerated survivors are eligible for compensation if the death is found to be service connected. The evidence must show that a disorder incurred in or aggravated by service either caused or contributed substantially or materially to the cause of the Veteran’s death. For a service connected disability to be the cause of death it must singly or with some other condition be the immediate or underlying cause, or be etiologically related. For a service-connected disability to constitute a contributory cause, it is not sufficient to show that it casually shared in producing death. Rather, it must be shown that there was a causal connection. 38 U.S.C. § 1310; 38 C.F.R. § 3.312. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. At the time of his death, the Veteran was not service connected for any disabilities. The question before the Board is whether the Veteran’s myocardial ischemia was related to service, to include exposure to herbicide agents. Service treatment records do not document any heart disabilities during service. The February 1976 separation examination did not indicate that the Veteran’s heart was abnormal, and the Veteran was found qualified for separation from service. The Veteran stated in an April 1976 Statement of Medical Condition that there had been no change in his medical condition since the separation examination. The Veteran also specifically denied “Heart trouble” in a February 1976 Report of Medical History. The record contains no further evidence of the Veteran’s heart disability, thus there is no evidence of a heart disability until the Report of Death of an American Citizen Abroad in June 2011. In addition, there is no medical evidence linking the Veteran’s service to his heart disability. Accordingly, the Board finds that myocardial ischemia was not incurred in service or within one year of service. In addition, the appellant contends that service connection for the Veteran’s cause of death is warranted because the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while stationed in Thailand, specifically herbicide agents on the perimeter of Ramasun Station. VA regulations provide for a presumption of service connection for certain disabilities associated with herbicide-agent exposure under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 and 3.309. Pursuant to the M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section H, exposure to herbicide agents is conceded for veterans who served on Army bases in Thailand where the veterans’ duty placed them at or near the base perimeter, such as members who served in military police units or military police occupational specialties. The appellant’s representative suggested two situations in which the Veteran was at or near the perimeter: visiting his future wife (the appellant) and serving as a telecommunications specialist. For the first situation, the appellant’s representative stated that “the circumstances surrounding the Veteran’s marriage strongly suggests that the Veteran was at or near the perimeter on multiple occasions.” The representative hypothesizes that the Veteran and the appellant “more than likely” met and continued to see each other while the Veteran served in Thailand. First, there is no indication in the record that the Veteran and the appellant met during his service in Thailand or that they would meet along the perimeter during the Veteran’s service in Thailand. If the representative meant instead that the Veteran left the base on multiple occasions, the Board finds such crossings at an exit do not rise to the level of exposure similar to that of a military police unit that patrols the perimeter. Second, the appellant’s representative suggested that the Veteran worked near the base perimeter as a telecommunications specialist because the communication center was situated near the perimeter. The Board has considered the aerial photo and layout plan of Ramasun Station provided by the representative in September 2018 and finds that the communication center was sufficiently far from the perimeter that the Veteran’s work as a telecommunications specialist did not qualify as working on or near the base perimeter. In sum, the Board finds that the Veteran did not have a heart disability, including myocardial ischemia, in service or within one year of service. The Board also finds that the Veteran was not exposed to herbicide agents while serving in Thailand. Accordingly, service connection is not warranted for the cause of the Veteran’s death. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to nonservice-connected death pension benefits and entitlement to accrued benefits are remanded. The appellant filed a claim for cause of death (dependency and indemnity compensation, or DIC) in August 2011. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.152(b)(1), a claim for DIC is also considered a claim for death pension and accrued benefits. The Regional Office (RO) acknowledged the claims for cause of death, death pension, and accrued benefits in its September 2011 Veteran Claims Assistance Act letter. In November 2011, the RO sent a letter denying the Veteran’s claim, and in March 2012 the appellant submitted a Notice of Disagreement disagreeing with “all issues denied.” The Statement of the Case (SOC) and Supplemental Statements of the Case that followed addressed only the claim for cause of death. Thus, the claims for death pension and accrued benefits have not been addressed in a SOC, and must be so addressed on remand. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Complete any development necessary for the issues of entitlement to death pension and accrued benefits, then provide an SOC to the appellant on the issues. The   appellant should also be informed of the requirements to perfect an appeal with respect to these issues. M. H. HAWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD W. Ripplinger, Associate Counsel