Citation Nr: 18161030 Decision Date: 12/28/18 Archive Date: 12/28/18 DOCKET NO. 17-02 537 DATE: December 28, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for multiple myeloma from exposure to herbicides is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence of record indicates that it is as likely as not that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides while stationed in Thailand. 2. The Veteran’s multiple myeloma is related to his in-service exposure to herbicides. CONCLUSION OF LAW With resolution of reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the criteria for service connection for multiple myeloma have been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1154, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the US Air Force from June 1966 to October 1978 and from September 1983 to July 1986. Entitlement to service connection for multiple myeloma from exposure to herbicides The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for multiple myeloma from exposure to herbicides during his service in Thailand. Service connection will be granted if the Veteran has a disability resulting from personal injury or disease incurred in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury or disease incurred in the line of duty during active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection, the 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The requirement that a present disability exists is satisfied if the Veteran had a disability at the time his claim for VA disability compensation was filed or during the pendency of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The law also establishes a presumption of entitlement to service connection for diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents and also provides a presumption of exposure for veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 (a)(6), 3.309(e). In such circumstances, service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for the diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e), to include multiple myeloma, if manifested to a compensable degree at any time after active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (a)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(ii). There are no regulatory or statutory presumptions regarding herbicide exposure in Thailand. However, VA will presume that a veteran who served in Thailand between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975 was exposed to herbicides on a factual basis if they are Air Force veterans who served at the Royal Thai Air Force Bases of U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, or Don Muang as security policemen, security patrol dog handlers, or members of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near a base perimeter, as shown by their military occupational specialty (MOS), daily work duties, performance evaluations, or other credible evidence. VA Adjudication Manual, M21-1, IV.ii.1.H.5.a. The Veteran’s military personnel records indicate that he had the military occupational specialty (MOS) of administrative technician. His military personnel records confirm that he served at Don Muang RTAFB from September 1967 to September 1968. The Veteran asserts in his statement to the VA received November 2013 that his duties often took him at or near the perimeter of Don Muang RTAFB to work at the supply warehouse. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that while he was working in base supply he was often called upon to perform supply duties, which required him to drive supply trucks to the other side of the base and pick up supplies and bring them back to the warehouse and unload them on the dock. The Veteran maintains that all the supply warehouses were adjacent to the perimeter and has submitted a photograph labeled Appendix 6, Historical Data Report, Base Civil Engineer, dated October 1967, which identifies the buildings near the perimeter as warehouses and supply buildings. Further, this same photograph supports the Veteran’s contention that his barracks were next to the perimeter because it identifies the H-shaped building next to the perimeter as dormitories. The Veteran has provided competent and credible evidence of being at the perimeter of Don Muang via his statements and service personnel records reflecting his service as an administrative technician. There is no affirmative evidence to explicitly contradict the Veteran’s report of being at the perimeter of the base. Further, the Board must consider lay evidence in addition to the service records, and the places, types, and circumstances of service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Moreover, there is no requirement that exposure to herbicides be definitively shown by personnel records. Parseeya-Picchione v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 171, 176 (2016) (vacating Board decision for not considering evidence other than personnel records in determining whether a veteran stopped in Vietnam on the way to service in Thailand). The Board finds that the Veteran is competent to report the geographical location at which he was stationed during his service, as well as the physical presence of his person as it related at various times to the perimeter of the air base. Furthermore, he has presented credible evidence that he worked near the base perimeter. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that his duties placed him near the perimeter of Don Muang in Thailand. See 38 U.S.C. §5107(b). For the foregoing reasons, the Veteran’s exposure to an herbicide agent is presumed. 38 U.S.C. §1116(f); 38 C.F.R. §3.307(a)(6)(iii). In such cases, service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for the diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. §3.309(e), to include multiple myeloma, if manifested to a compensable degree at any time after active service. 38 U.S.C. §1116(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. §3.307(a)(6)(ii). Private treatment records show that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of multiple myeloma. The Veteran has also submitted the medical opinion of Dr. G.H.T., who has opined in three separate letters (dated October 2013, June 2015, and September 2016) that the Veteran’s multiple myeloma is directly related to herbicide exposure during the Veteran’s military service.   Resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that the Veteran had herbicide exposure and multiple myeloma. Accordingly, the Board will grant service connection for multiple myeloma on a presumptive basis. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.3.09 (2017). MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Scanlan, Associate Counsel