Citation Nr: 18153279 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/27/18 DOCKET NO. 16-41 745 DATE: November 28, 2018 ORDER Service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is denied. FINDING OF FACT Diabetes mellitus, type II was not manifested in service or for many years thereafter, and there is not sufficient evidence that such disease may be etiologically related to the Veteran’s service, to include service in Korea. CONCLUSION OF LAW Service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from October 1965 to October 1968. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision. Service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is denied. The Veteran contends on his Notice of Disagreement dated May 2014 as well as his Form 9 dated August 2016 that his diabetes mellitus, type II condition is connected to his exposure to herbicide agents (Agent Orange) while serving in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in Korea. He contends he was exposed to herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, in the course of his service along the DMZ. Service connection may be granted for disability due to disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C.§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To substantiate a claim of service connection, there must be evidence of: (1) a present disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a causal relationship between the claimed disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and an evaluation of its credibility and probative value. Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Certain chronic diseases (to include type 2 diabetes mellitus) may be presumed to be service connected as due to exposure to herbicide agents if manifested in Vietnam during the Vietnam Era. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § § 3.307, 3.309(e). The presumptive provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1116 have been extended to encompass Veterans shown to have been otherwise exposed to tactical herbicides in service on the DMZ in Korea. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. The Compensation and Pension Record Interchange dated July 2016 notes that the Veteran was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus in 2009. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, type II. It is not in dispute that the Veteran presently has the claimed disability. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for complaints or findings of diabetes mellitus, type II. As it pertains to presumptive exposure to herbicide agents, the record reflects that the Veteran served in Korea from May 1967 to June 1968. The presumptive period for which exposure to herbicide agents is conceded for serving in the DMZ is from April 1968 to August 1971. However, the record does not show that the Veteran served in the DMZ at any time while he was in Korea, including the presumptive period. The Veteran asserts in his Notice of Disagreement dated May 2014 that he was in the DMZ for 37 days beginning in April 1968. He stated that he was assigned to “C Battery” out of Suwon Air Force Base but was detailed to “A Battery” out of Osan Air Force Base while on duty in the DMZ, and that he was sprayed with a chemical by an Air Force helicopter in the DMZ. The Board reviewed evidence submitted by the Veteran, including photographs that he stated were taken of him in the DMZ. However, none of the evidence submitted, including the photographs, show that the Veteran was in the DMZ during the presumptive period or that he was exposed to Agent Orange or other tactical herbicides. The VA Regional Office sent a request to the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS) to see if the Veteran’s statements about his unit’s service in the DMZ could be verified. The DPRIS responded in July 2016 and found that the Company A, 7th Battalion, 2nd Artillery was located at Shihung-ni Compound, South Korea and that the records of the unit’s history do not reflect any specific duties performed along the DMZ. The DPRIS also reviewed the 1968 Eighth US Army chronology and found the records do not document the use, storage, spraying or transportation of herbicides to include Agent Orange. The Board finds the documentation of the Veteran’s unit’s history more probative than his self-reported accounts describing his recollections of events that are inconsistent with the unit history. As it pertains to non-presumptive exposure to herbicide agents, in addition to the foregoing, the Veteran said in June 2010 that he was not exposed to any herbicides including Agent Orange in his Application for Benefits document. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran is not shown to have been exposed to Agent Orange in the course of his service in Korea on either a presumptive or non-presumptive basis. Therefore, the Veteran is not entitled to consideration of his claim under the presumptive provisions in 38 U.S.C. § 1116. The Veteran has not met the requirements to find service connection based on direct service analysis. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Veteran was not diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, type II until 2009, many decades after his separation from service. There were no complaints or treatment records during service or the first year postservice which indicated the Veteran contracted diabetes mellitus, type II, while in service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran is not shown to have a direct service connection to his disability. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.309(a). In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. Accordingly, the appeal in this matter must be denied. DAVID GRATZ Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Robert Cordingley, Associate Counsel