Citation Nr: 18157773 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 16-49 759 DATE: December 13, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease, to include as a result of exposure to herbicide agents, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1968 to February 1970. The Veteran passed away in August 2015. The Appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse, and has been substituted as the claimant in this case. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Louis Regional Office (RO). 1. Service connection for ischemic heart disease is remanded. The Board finds that further evidentiary development is necessary before the Board can adjudicate the remaining claim on appeal. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the claims. VA regulations provide that certain diseases associated with exposure to herbicide agents used in support of military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era will be presumed to have been incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). In addition, a Veteran who had active military service between April 1, 1968, and August 31, 1971 in or near the Korean DMZ, where herbicide agents are known to have been applied, as determined by the DOD, shall be presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents during such service, unless there is affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iv). However, the presumption of service connection for certain diseases due to herbicide agent exposure may also apply if exposure to herbicide agents is shown on a factual basis. In essence, if the Veteran did not serve in Vietnam during the Vietnam Era or at the Korean DMZ in a particular unit during the required time, actual exposure to herbicide agents must be verified through appropriate service department or other sources in order for the presumption of service connection for the enumerated diseases under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) to be applicable. Exposure to herbicide agents is not presumed in those instances, but the exposure to herbicide agents may still be established if shown by the facts of the case. Once exposure to herbicide agents has been established by the facts of the case, the presumption of service connection found in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) is applicable. The Board notes that the list of diseases associated with exposure to herbicide agents includes ischemic heart disease (including, but not limited to, acute, subacute, and old myocardial infarction; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (including coronary spasm) and coronary bypass surgery; and stable, unstable and Prinzmetal’s angina). 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The Appellant contends that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while stationed at Fort Gordon, Georgia and that exposure led to the Veteran’s ischemic heart disease. In February 2015, in efforts to adjudicate this claim, the RO contacted the Compensation Service for confirmation of the Veteran’s herbicide exposure; and requested a review of the Department of Defense inventory of herbicide agent operations to determine whether herbicide agents were used as alleged. A review of the Department of Defense list of sites associated with herbicide agent use or testing indicated a short-term herbicide agent study was conducted at Ft. Gordon, Georgia from December 1966 to October 1967. The herbicide agent testing conducted at Ft. Gordon was completed 8 months prior to the Veteran’s assignment to Ft. Gordon, Georgia. Therefore, the Compensation Service concluded that no evidence supported the Veteran’s claim of herbicide agent exposure while stationed at Fort Gordon. However, the Compensation Service also recommended that the Veteran’s claim be referred to the United States Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for any information that organization could provide to corroborate the Veteran’s claimed exposure. To date, VA has not developed this claim by sending the Veteran’s information to the JSRRC to attempt to verify his statements regarding his herbicide agent exposure. Thus, this case must be remanded for additional development. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request verification from JSRRC as to whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents or other hazardous or toxic chemicals at Fort Gordon as alleged during his period of service from February 1968 to February 1970. All documentation sent and received must be associated with the claims file. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Mondesir, Law Clerk