Citation Nr: 18119366 Decision Date: 07/18/18 Archive Date: 07/18/18 DOCKET NO. 14-24 226A DATE: July 18, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type 2, secondary to herbicide exposure in Thailand is granted. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, secondary to herbicide exposure in Thailand is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s diabetes mellitus type 2, is attributable to herbicide exposure that occurred while stationed at Korat Air Force Base (AFB) Thailand. 2. The Veteran’s coronary artery disease is attributable to herbicide exposure that occurred while stationed at Korat AFB Thailand. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus are 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 coronary artery disease are 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 in the United States Army from October 1968 to May 1971. In February 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. The transcript is of record. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. “To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: ‘(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 or aggravated during service’ – the so-called “nexus” requirement.” Holton v. Shineski, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). If the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent (to include Agent Orange) during active service, diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease shall be service-connected if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6) are met, even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied. A veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975 is presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent if a listed chronic disease manifests to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more, unless there is affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a). The presumption is rebuttable. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d). Service in the Republic of Vietnam includes service in the waters offshore and service in other locations, if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam. If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, certain diseases are presumed to be service connected if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6) are met, even though there is no record of the disease during service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Special consideration of herbicide exposure on a factual basis has been extended to Veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. In this regard, if a veteran served at a Royal Thai Air Force base in U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, or Don Muang as an Air Force security policeman, security patrol dog handler, a member of a security police squadron, or otherwise near the air base perimeter as shown by the evidence of daily work activities, performance evaluation reports, or other credible evidence, herbicide exposure will be conceded on a direct/facts-found basis. See VA Adjudication Manual, M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section H, Topic 5 (M21-1); see also VA Public Health Thailand Guidance, http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/thailand.asp. In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). The Veteran asserts he is entitled to service connection for diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease due to exposure to herbicides while serving with the 219th Military Police (MP) Unit at Korat AFB from 1970 to 1971. He testified that he was exposed to herbicides during his daily work activities, which required him to provide security for the perimeter of the base. Additionally, he alleges exposure due to his living quarters, referred to as a “hooch”, being on the perimeter and within sight of where the herbicides were sprayed. Review of post-service medical records establish that the Veteran has current diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. The Veteran’s military personnel record reflects that he was assigned to the 219th MP unit in Thailand as a heavy vehicle driver and service treatment records establish that while a part of the 219th MP Unit he was stationed at Korat AFB. At the hearing, the Veteran testified that, while in Thailand, he was reassigned from his original unit to the 219th MP Unit. As part of his duties as an MP, he provided security, which included patrolling the perimeter of Korat AFB both on foot and in vehicles. The Veteran is competent to describe observable facts, such as his duties and proximity to the perimeter while based at Korat AFB. The Board finds the Veteran’s testimony regarding his proximity to the perimeter while stationed at Korat AFB credible. The evidence establishes that the Veteran worked and lived near the perimeter of Korat AFB in 1970 and 1971; thus, exposure to herbicides is presumed. As such, service connection for diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease, due to herbicide exposure, is granted. G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. A. Prinsen, Associate Counsel