Citation Nr: 18154956 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/03/18 DOCKET NO. 16-52 496 DATE: December 4, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death for purposes of receiving Dependents and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from December 1970 to March 1973. The Veteran died in September 2014. The Appellant is his surviving spouse. This appeal to the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) arose from a January 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Appellant has perfected the appeal. See July 2015 Notice of Disagreement; September 2016 Statement of the Case (SOC); October 2016 Substantive Appeal (VA Form 9). 1. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death for purposes of receiving Dependents and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) is remanded. After a thorough review of the Veteran's claims file, the Board has determined that additional evidentiary development is necessary prior to the adjudication of the Appellant’s claim of entitlement to service connection for the cause of death for purposes of receiving DIC. The Veteran died in September 2014. The death certificate indicates that the primary cause of death as multisystem organ failure, cardiogenic shock, ventricular tachycardia, and congestive heart failure. The Veteran was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease and coronary artery disease in 2001. In September 2014, he was given the impression of advance heart failure Class III-IV 2/2 to ischemic heart disease. The Appellant, through her representative, contends that the Veteran’s heart conditions should be service-connected based on exposure to Agent Orange while serving in the Army. The Appellant states that the Veteran was stationed at Camp Samae San in Thailand during the Vietnam Era. It is contended that Camp Samae San was located in close proximity to U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAF), which is a base where herbicides were used. The Appellant further argues that the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) was a supply specialist. The Veteran indicated that he handled material directly. It is contended that the Veteran’s MOS would have required him to deliver supplies and equipment, which would have placed him in and around the perimeter of U-Tapao’s base. On an Agent Orange worksheet dated September 2012, the Veteran indicated that he served on Camp Samae San. He also noted serving on “deep water port near Udorn and U-Tapao Air Force Bases”. The Veteran’s personnel records indicate that he was stationed in Thailand from November 1971 to April 1972 as a movement specialist. The DD-214 states his specialty to be a unit and organizational supply specialist. The VA’s Compensation and Pension Service (C&P) issued information concerning herbicide use in Thailand during the Vietnam era. It was determined that there was significant herbicide use on the fenced-in perimeters of military bases in Thailand. This was stated in a declassified Vietnam era Department of Defense document entitled “Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report: Base Defense in Thailand.” Special consideration is given to Veterans who served on Royal Thai Air Force bases at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhil, Korat and Don Murang or near the air base perimeter; Army Veterans who provided security on RTAF bases in Thailand; and Army Veterans who were stationed on some small Army installations in Thailand serving as a member of military police (MP) or assigned a MP MOS, whose duty placed them at or near the base perimeter. Thus, the Board finds that a remand is necessary for further development to determine the Veteran’s presence on Camp Samae San in Thailand and its proximity to U-Tapao or Udorn bases and its perimeter. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Undertake any necessary development, including contacting the United States Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), or other appropriate agency, to obtain, to the extent feasible a verification of the Veteran’s duties while serving in Thailand. Specifically, take all appropriate measures to verify: a) whether the Veteran served on Camp Samae San or any other camps or bases in Thailand. b) whether the Veteran was stationed in an area in which herbicides were used, or on or near the perimeter at the U-Tapao and Udorn Royal Thai Air Force bases. c) whether the Veteran’s duties would have placed him at or near the perimeter of U-Tapao or Udorn bases. 2. After the development requested above has been completed, the AOJ should determine whether there is enough evidence to make a plausible determination that the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange in service. If sufficient evidence is found, the AOJ should arrange for any additional development that it deems appropriate, such as submitting the record to a medical expert for an etiology opinion, if warranted. 3. If the benefit sought is not granted, the AOJ should furnish the Appellant a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and be given the opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board for further review. DEBORAH W. SINGLETON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Syesa Middleton, Associate Counsel