Citation Nr: 18155724 Decision Date: 12/06/18 Archive Date: 12/04/18 DOCKET NO. 15-39 133 DATE: December 6, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence of record does not establish that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while stationed in Korea. 2. Diabetes mellitus, type II, is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to any disease, injury, or incident in service, and did not manifest within one year of the Veteran’s discharge from service. 3. Hypertension is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to any disease, injury, or incident in service, and did not manifest within one year of the Veteran’s discharge from service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for hypertension are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1962 to September 1965 and served in Korea from September 1964 to April 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2012 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). VA received an appellate process election form from the Veteran in October 2012 in which the Veteran indicated he wanted the decision reviewed by a Decision Review Officer and wrote on the same form that he was also requesting a travel board hearing. In October 2015, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 9 in which no response was provided to the question of whether he wanted a Board hearing. A hearing clarification letter was sent to the Veteran in October 2018 in which he was asked to respond within 30 days whether he wanted a hearing or not. The Board has received no response to the October 2018 hearing clarification letter. Therefore, the claims will be considered based on the current record. Service Connection Generally, to prove service connection, a veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 1. Service Connection - Diabetes Mellitus, Type II The Veteran has provided evidence of a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, type II. The file does not show an exact date of diagnosis, but the Veteran claims he was diagnosed in 2009, and evidence clearly demonstrates ongoing treatment for the condition. In February 2010, the Veteran provided a VA Form 21-4138 Statement in Support of Claim which stated “Amend: Diabetes Mellitus due to agent orange exposure.” In March 2010, the Veteran was sent a duty to assist letter from the RO requesting further evidence to support the claim of herbicide exposure. No further evidence was provided other than similar general statements claiming herbicide exposure while in service. In July 2012, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim of service connection for diabetes due to there being no evidence of a diagnosis while in service and no evidence of herbicide exposure while in service. Both in October 2015 and May 2017, the same correspondence was provided in support of the claim of herbicide exposure. The correspondence was a copy of a rating decision for a different veteran, which is not controlling in this case as the Board is assessing this Veteran’s actual exposure to herbicide agents. The document merely cites records indicating that herbicide agents were used in one specific area of Korea by one specific unit as early as 1962. The document states that the information is based on the unit history for the 335th Maintenance Battalion which was stationed “in the Yongsan area, south of the Han River and north of Suwon, which is within the sprayed areas.” A DPRIS report from July 2016 shows that the Veteran was stationed near the DMZ at Camp Howze in 1964, and was with the 13th Signal Battalion supporting the 1st Cavalry Division. Unit records were reviewed and there are no records that any tactical herbicide agent, including Agent Orange, was used, stored, or transported in the area where the Veteran was stationed during his time in service. The Veteran has not shown that he has the medical or scientific background, knowledge, or experience to establish that he saw, smelled, tasted, or felt herbicides (including Agent Orange) on the equipment he handled. The Board finds that the Veteran’s statements are not competent evidence, and thus, cannot support a finding of actual exposure. The most probative evidence (namely, the service department records) of record does not show that the Veteran was exposed to tactical herbicides while stationed in Korea. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to the presumption of herbicide exposure for his claim for service connection. No evidence has been provided indicating a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, type II during service or within one year of discharge, and the evidence provided in support of the claim of herbicide exposure is insufficient to establish that the Veteran experienced actual herbicide exposure. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, is denied. 2. Service Connection - Hypertension The Veteran has provided evidence of a current diagnosis of hypertension. Although the record provides conflicting information regarding the exact date of diagnosis, evidence clearly shows a current diagnosis and that the diagnosis occurred several years after service. In October 2015, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 9 contending that his hypertension was due to Agent Orange exposure. Because there is insufficient evidence to show that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides (as discussed above), the Veteran in this case is also unable to establish a service connection between the claimed exposure and his hypertension. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1045 (1994). As noted above, DPRIS unit history records do not show the use of herbicide agents at the time and location of the Veteran’s service in Korea. The rating decision for a different veteran shows that a specific veteran was able to demonstrate in-service exposure to an herbicide agent, but this finding has no bearing on the instant claim. No evidence has been provided indicating a diagnosis of hypertension during service or within one year of discharge and the evidence provided in support of the claim of herbicide exposure is insufficient to establish that the Veteran experienced actual herbicide exposure. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals J. Jack, Law Clerk Department of Veterans Affairs