Citation Nr: 18154713 Decision Date: 11/30/18 Archive Date: 11/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-50 774 DATE: November 30, 2018 ORDER Service connection for prostate cancer, as secondary to herbicide exposure, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Based on his credible assertions and testimony, supporting buddy statement, and resolving all doubt in his favor, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents while serving along the perimeter of Korat Air Force Base in Thailand. 2. The Veteran’s prostate cancer is presumed related to his exposure to herbicide agents which occurred during his active service in Thailand. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer, claimed as secondary to herbicide exposure, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1970 to September 1974. 1. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer. Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012). Generally, the evidence 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), an alternative method of establishing the second and third Shedden element is through a demonstration of continuity of symptomatology if the disability claimed qualifies as a chronic disease listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). Regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for a disability diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability is due to disease or injury which was incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Finally, 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) requires that VA give “due consideration” to “all pertinent medical and lay evidence” in evaluating a claim for disability or death benefits. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Specifically, “[l]ay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional.” Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). If a Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, then certain diseases, such as prostate cancer, shall be service connected even though there is no record of such disease during service. For the purposes of this section, the term “herbicide agent” means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e), 3.313 (2018). In addition to exposure within the Republic of Vietnam, exposure to Agent Orange has been noted to have occurred in various places, including Thailand. VA has determined that U.S. Air Force Veterans who served on Royal Thai Air Force Bases (RTAFBs) at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang, near the air base perimeter anytime during the Vietnam Era, may have been exposed to herbicides. Particularly, to benefit from the presumption of herbicide exposure at one of the above listed air bases, a Veteran must have served as a security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by military occupational specialty, performance evaluation, or other credible evidence. In the present case, the Veteran asserts, and VA concedes, that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of prostate cancer. The Veteran contends that his prostate cancer is related to herbicide exposure during active duty. The Veteran states that he was stationed at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand in 1973 and 1974. He asserts that during that time he lived in an open air “hootch” where the windows were only screened and they were located within 100 feet of the base perimeter fence. He stated that during his service in Korat his duties included an assignment as an inventory management specialist where he was required to routinely work on or near the flight line which was close to the perimeter at the end of the base. He has also asserted that he passed near and through the perimeter approximately three times a week at the beginning of his tour on Korat and almost daily during the last several months of his tour. See October 2016 Declaration. The Veteran additionally submitted an October 2016 Declaration from a fellow service member. His friend stated that he had been stationed with the Veteran at Korat from approximately October 1973 to October 1974. He stated that during his time in Korat he had lived in an open air “hootch” with the Veteran and that their living quarters were located within 50 to 100 feet from the perimeter fence. He also attested that he worked with the Veteran at the “RAC center” which was located near the flight line near the base perimeter. The Veteran’s service personnel records reflect that he served in Thailand at the Korat RTAFB in 1973 and 1974. The Veteran asserts that he was exposed to herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, during his time at Korat RTAFB. The Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) has not been able to confirm the Veteran’s exposure to herbicides. A lay witness is competent to testify to that which the witness has actually observed and is within the realm of his personal knowledge. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994). While the JSRRC has not been able to corroborate the Veteran’s testimony that his housing and responsibilities took him essentially to the perimeter of the Korat RTAFB, the Board notes that there is no basis in the record to question the Veteran’s credibility regarding his statements as to his circumstances of service. His statements indicate that he regularly worked and lived near the perimeter of the base, within eyesight of the base perimeter. He has submitted a buddy statement further supporting his statements. Based on the Veteran’s credible assertions, the credible assertions in the October 2016 buddy statement, and resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents during his active service. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Further, as he is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange, the presumption of service connection for prostate cancer attaches. 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e) (2018). Therefore, service connection for prostate cancer is warranted. CAROLINE B. FLEMING Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A.M. Clark, Counsel