Citation Nr: 18159122 Decision Date: 12/19/18 Archive Date: 12/18/18 DOCKET NO. 16-62 529 DATE: December 19, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his job duties regularly placed him in close proximity to the perimeter of an applicable Thailand base during his service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for leukemia on a presumptive basis have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a)(b), 3.307(b), 3.309(e) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from February 1970 to September 1993. Entitlement to service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia Certain diseases, to include all B-cell leukemias, may be service connected if the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided that the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are satisfied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The majority of troops in Thailand during the Vietnam Era were stationed at the Royal Thai Air Force Bases of U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang. If a veteran served on one of these air bases 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 MOS (military occupational specialty), performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, then herbicide exposure should be acknowledged on a facts-found or direct basis. In the current case, the Veteran contends that his leukemia is the result of exposure to Agent Orange in Thailand at U-Tapao Air Force Base. The record reflects a current diagnosis for leukemia. As to the Veteran’s service, his military personnel records reflect that he was stationed at U-Tapao between August 1972 and July 1973. The Veteran’s military personnel records also specify that he was stationed in Thailand for 249 days and was a part of the B-52 crew. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran served on an applicable base in Thailand during the Vietnam Era. The remaining issue is therefore whether there is credible evidence that he served near the air base perimeter. In this case, the Veteran’s military personnel records do not reflect that he served as a security policeman or a security patrol dog handler while stationed in Thailand. However, the provisions regarding presumptive service connection based on service in Thailand allow for “other credible evidence” that a veteran served on or near the base perimeter, to include military duties. The Veteran’s DD-214 lists a military occupation specialty of electronic warfare officer. As noted, his military personnel records also indicate that he served on the B-52. In the December 2016 Form 9, the Veteran’s attorney states that the B-52 crew flew combat missions in support of SEA operations in Vietnam, and as a B-52 crewmember, the Veteran had to take the perimeter fence where defoliants were used. The attorney further asserts that crewmembers often rode in buses with the windows open due to no air conditioning. The attorney also asserts that B-52s revetments were in the area behind aircraft staging areas, all located near the perimeter fence. The attorney asserts that as a crewmember, the Veteran was placed directly in herbicide areas during preflight and post-flight duties around the outside of the aircraft. There are also buddy statements of record from a J.K. and a R.S. indicating they served with the Veteran in Thailand and attesting to his duties on the B-52 and being on and near the base perimeter. The Board finds the evidence sufficient to concede that the Veteran served on or near the base perimeter at U-Tapao. The Veteran is competent to attest to his day to day experiences in Thailand. The buddy statements are equally competent as they express first-hand knowledge of the Veteran’s day to day activities in Thailand. The Board also has no reason to doubt the credibility of any of the assertions, which are also in line with the Veteran’s military personnel records (indicating that he was a part of the B-25 crew). Notably, there is also no evidence of record to contradict the Veteran’s assertions as to his daily activities. Given the nature of the Veteran’s in-service duties, the Board finds it credible that he was regularly on or near the perimeter of the base. The Board therefore concedes in-service exposure to Agent Orange. (Continued on the next page)   Accordingly, as the Veteran has a chronic disability listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) and exposure to Agent Orange is conceded, presumptive service connection is warranted for the Veteran’s leukemia. ROBERT C. SCHARNBERGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Smith, Associate Counsel