Citation Nr: 18157786 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 15-18 001 DATE: December 13, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as secondary to herbicide exposure, is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran served in Thailand; exposure to herbicides/Agent Orange is not verified and may not be presumed. 2. Diabetes mellitus was not shown in service, did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation from active service, and is not otherwise related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as secondary to herbicide exposure have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1116, 5103, 5103(A); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from June 1966 to December 1969. He received the Vietnam Service Medal with 1 Bronze Service Star and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a March 2014 rating decision of the VA Regional Office (RO) in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Veteran contends that he has Type II diabetes mellitus as a result of herbicide exposure while serving at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) in Thailand. Specifically, he asserted that he had cause to drive to and around the perimeter of the base. He further stated that he had additional duties which involved guard duty for four hours every night for approximately one month that also included exposure from military dogs and handlers. See March 2016 DRO hearing testimony. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Generally, service connection requires (1) the existence of a present disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a causal relationship (nexus) between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Without evidence of disease or injury during service, service connection may still be granted if all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Additionally, if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service, certain diseases, including Type II diabetes mellitus, shall be service connected if manifest to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more at any time after service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). Based on a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus is not warranted on a presumptive basis. As to the first prong, the Veteran’s post-service private medical records from March 2013 and VA treatment records from June 2013 through August 2015 reflect that he has been diagnosed with diabetes mellitus type II, which is among the conditions associated with exposure to herbicide agents under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Thus, the critical question for the Board is whether the Veteran was, in fact, exposed to herbicides during his active duty service. The Veteran’s service personnel records show that he served in Thailand in 1969 with a military occupational specialty (MOS) of vehicle operator. Military personnel records also show that he was assigned to the 388th Transportation Squadron while stationed at Korat RTAFB and the 355th Transportation Squadron while stationed at Takhli RTAFB. His service treatment records (STRs) from January 1969 confirm that he was stationed at Korat RTAFB. The Veteran asserts exposure to herbicides while on guard duty. See January 2016 DRO hearing testimony. VA’s Compensation & Pension Service (C&P) has issued information concerning the use of herbicides in Thailand during the Vietnam War. In a May 2010 bulletin, C&P indicated that it has determined that there was significant use of herbicides on the fenced in perimeters of military bases in Thailand intended to eliminate vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes. A primary source for this information was the declassified Vietnam era Department of Defense (DOD) document titled Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report: Based Defense in Thailand. Although DOD indicated that the herbicide use was commercial in nature rather than tactical (such as Agent Orange), C&P has determined that there was some evidence that herbicides of a tactical nature, or that of a “greater strength” commercial variant, were used. Given this information, C&P has determined that special consideration should be given to veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. Consideration of herbicide exposure on a “facts found or direct basis” should be extended to those veterans. Significantly, C&P stated that “[t]his allows for presumptive service connection of the diseases associated with herbicide exposure.” The May 2010 bulletin identifies several bases in Thailand. C&P indicated that herbicide exposure should be acknowledged on a facts found or direct basis if (1) a United States Air Force veteran served at one of the air bases as a security policeman, a security patrol dog handler, a member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by his or her military occupational specialty, performance evaluations, or other credible evidence; (2) an Army veteran was a member of a military police unit that served at or near a base perimeter in Thailand; or (3) an Army veteran who served on an air base in Thailand and provided perimeter security. The Veteran’s file includes a January 2014 formal finding from a Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) Coordinator stating that VA lacked the information required to verify the Veteran’s accounts of herbicide exposure in Thailand. This formal finding addresses evidence in the record concerning the Veteran’s work responsibilities based on his MOS while he was stationed at Korat RTAFB. Additionally, there are no notations on the Veteran’s DD Form 214 or in his performance appraisals to indicate that he participated in guard duty while at Korat RTAFB. There are no pictures of the Veteran along the perimeter, nor were any buddy statements submitted. Therefore, there is no basis on which to find exposure other than the Veteran’s own statements. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s sincere belief that he was exposed to herbicides while serving in Thailand. However, after a careful review of the record, the Board finds that such service is not shown by MOS or otherwise on a fact found basis. The Board finds that the evidence presented in support of the claim is insufficient to establish that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides during his service in Thailand. The Board also considered direct connection for the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus, type II. However, the service treatment records are silent as to any treatment or diagnoses. The Board notes that the Veteran indicated during the January 2016 DRO hearing that he was unaware of any diagnosis until he underwent a DOT physical in 1981. The Board also notes that the Veteran has not provided sufficient evidence, such as private opinions and/or medical evidence, to establish a nexus between his diabetes mellitus type II and active service. The Veteran does not possess the medical training or credentials to competently link a type II diabetes mellitus diagnosis to service, and, in the total absence of supportive competent evidence, the Board finds no basis for a remand for a VA examination because there is no reasonable likelihood of favorable findings from such examination. See 38 C.F.R. §3.159(c)(4). As the competent evidence of record does not establish a nexus between the Veteran’s service and the claimed disabilities, direct service connection must be denied. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s currently diagnosed type II diabetes mellitus manifested as a result of a period of active service. In short, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, and the claim must be denied. In reaching the above conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-56 (1990). A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Banks, Associate Counsel