Citation Nr: 18158905 Decision Date: 12/19/18 Archive Date: 12/18/18 DOCKET NO. 17-36 145A DATE: December 19, 2018 ORDER Service connection for ischemic heart disease (IHD) is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty as a pilot in the United States Navy from August 1964 to October 1969. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and the Air Medal. 2. IHD was incurred in, or is otherwise etiologically related to, service, including in-service exposure to herbicide agents. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving any doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the criteria for service connection for IHD have been met. 38 U.S.C. 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran testified as to this matter during a November 2018 travel board hearing. Though a transcript of that hearing has not yet been prepared, this decision is being issued under the Board’s “one touch” program, and a transcript of that hearing will be added to the Veteran’s file in the normal course of business. Service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As to the first element, there is competent evidence of IHD. Specifically, the Veteran was diagnosed with acute, subacute, or old myocardial infarction, and with coronary artery disease (CAD), during August 2015 VA examination. Both conditions qualify as a form of IHD, as per VA regulations and the VA examiner’s expert opinion. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). VA medical records through April 2017 also note the Veteran’s history of these disorders and the treatment thereof. As such, the first element of service connection—a current disability—has been met. As to the second element, the Veteran contends that he was exposed to herbicide agents during active duty. To that end, a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam between January 1962 and May 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to certain herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, unless there is affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Here, the record supports a finding of in-service exposure to herbicide agents. Of note, the Veteran has offered competent and credible testimony regarding one specific point of exposure in February 1969, when his helicopter ran low on fuel. As a result, he was diverted to Da Nang to refuel, where he placed boots on the ground. Generally, a veteran is competent to report that which he perceives through his senses, including events capable of observation. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). Further, the Veteran’s testimony is largely corroborated by the evidence of record, including service personnel records (SPRs) which indicate his presence in Southeast Asia during active duty and his in-service specialty as an ASW pilot. See, e.g., Department of Defense Form 214 (recording Veteran’s specialty as an ASW pilot and receipt of the Air Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, and Vietnam Service Medal); Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal memorandum dated April 1969 (noting the award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal for service spanning November 1968 to April 1969); Citation dated July 1969 (acknowledging achievements in aerial flight in combat operations in Southeast Asia from November 1968 to February 1969). Additionally, the Veteran’s testimony is consistent with the nature of his service, and his reports are well-documented and unvarying throughout the record. Moreover, there is no evidence which tends to contradict his recollections. Thus, in affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is found that he placed boots on the ground during the regulatory presumptive period. As such, in-service exposure to herbicide agents is presumed and the second element of service connection has been met. Such a finding triggers the application of presumptive service connection to this appeal. In this respect, if a veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service, certain diseases are presumed to have been incurred in-service if they manifest to a compensable degree within specified periods, and even if there is no record of such disease during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (a)(2); 38 C.F.R. §§3.307 (a)(6), 3.309(e). IHD qualifies as one such disease. As such, and in absence of evidence which rebuts the presumption of service incurrence in this case, the appeal is granted. Evan Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Kovarovic, Associate Counsel