Citation Nr: 18158056 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 15-27 043 DATE: December 18, 2018 ORDER The appeal of the decision finding that a valid notice of disagreement (NOD) was not received in response to the November 2011 rating decision, which assigned a 30 percent rating for service-connected bronchial asthma, is DENIED. The Veteran’s appeal to reopen his entitlement claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II, is GRANTED. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as secondary to herbicide agent exposure, is DENIED. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. By a decision entered in October 2009, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II; he was advised of the AOJ’s decision, and of his appellate rights. 2. The Veteran did not initiate an appeal of the October 2009 AOJ decision during the one-year period following the mailing of notice of that decision; nor was any new and material evidence received within a year. 3. By a decision entered in November 2011, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted the Veteran’s entitlement claim for bronchial asthma, assigning a 30 percent disability rating; the Veteran was advised of the AOJ’s decision, and of his appellate rights. 4. The Veteran did not submit a valid notice of disagreement within one year of the November 2011 AOJ decision; nor was any new and material evidence received within a year. 5. New evidence received after the AOJ's October 2009 decision, when considered with the evidence previously of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the Veteran'’ claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II. 6. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus, Type II, was incurred in or aggravated by active duty Air Force service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A valid notice of disagreement (NOD) having been not received within one year from the date of issuance of the October 2009 rating decision, or mailing of the notice the initial determination, it was not timely filed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (2017). 2. The October 2009 rating decision that denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103 (2017). 3. A valid notice of disagreement (NOD) having been not received within one year from the date of issuance of the November 2011 rating decision, or mailing of the notice the initial determination. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (2017). 4. The November 2011 rating decision that granted service connection for bronchial asthma, assigning a 30 percent valuation, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103 (2017). 5. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2017). 6. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.310 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Air Force from October 1972 to October 1976. The Board has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, all of the evidence submitted by the Veteran or on his behalf. See Gonzalez v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the Board must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claims. The Veteran must not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-30 (2000) (the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the Veteran).   FINALITY 1. As a valid and timely notice of disagreement (NOD) was not received in response to the October 2009 rating decision, which denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, the denial of that appeal is final. In October 2009, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) denied the Veteran service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II. The Veteran submitted his hand-written and valid NOD in May 2012. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (a), a decision of the rating office (RO) or other AOJ shall be final and binding as to conclusions based on the evidence on file at the time VA issues written notification in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 5104. An unappealed decision by the RO is final one year from the date notification of the determination is mailed to the claimant. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302, 20.1103. A notice of disagreement (NOD) is timely, if filed within one year of the date of mailing of notice of the result of initial review or determination. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (2017); see also Sims v. Shinseki, 578 F.3d 1332 (2009). Effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its adjudication regulations to require that all claims governed by VA’s adjudication regulations be filed on standard forms prescribed by the Secretary. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014). These amendments, however, are only applicable with respect to claims and appeals filed on or after March 24, 2015, and are not applicable in the present case. Id. at 57,686. Review of the record shows that the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus was originally denied in an October 2009 rating decision. Notification of the rating determination, and the Veteran’s appellate rights, were forwarded on the same date. There is no indication that the notification was returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. Therefore, it is presumed that the Veteran received the notification letter. In May 2012, the Veteran filed a NOD, regarding service-connection for diabetes mellitus. Therein, the Veteran posited that, “I didn’t receive the . . . denial letter on Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 until April 2012. So I was denied my rights to appeal that until now. I also had my E-benefits premium account messed up where I couldn’t go online for information. I have a DAV representative that can’t get my records because I had an attorney for my appeal (level7) and my right to appeal have been delayed by almost 3 yrs. I have other issues also.” Ultimately, after careful and deliberate review of the record, the Board finds the Veteran’s May 2012 NOD untimely. Again, there is no indication that the notification of the October 2009 AOJ denial was returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. Consequently, the Board concludes that the October 2009 AOJ denial is final. 2. As a valid notice of disagreement (NOD) was not received in response to the November 2011 rating decision, which assigned a 30 percent rating for service-connected bronchial asthma, the denial of that appeal is final. In November 2011, the AOJ granted the Veteran’s entitlement claim for service connection for bronchial asthma, effective April 22, 2003. In May 2012, Attorney SAR submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD) with the assigned 30 percent rating for the Veteran’s service-connected bronchial asthma. Therein, Attorney SAR relayed that, “(the Veteran) disagrees with the disability rating assigned for the grant of service-connection for bronchial asthma.” As identified above, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (a), a decision of the AOJ shall be final and binding as to conclusions based on the evidence on file at the time VA issues written notification in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 5104. An unappealed decision by the AOJ is final one year from the date notification of the determination is mailed to the claimant. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302, 20.1103. A NOD is timely, if filed within one year of the date of mailing of notice of the result of initial review or determination. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (2017); see also Sims, 578 F.3d 1332. In June 2010, VA received the Veteran’s VA Form 21-22a. Thereby, the Veteran appointed Attorney SAR as his representative for VA entitlement claims and/or issues. In April 2012, VA was notified that the Veteran had acquired another representative, Disabled American Veterans (DAV). The Board observes that the Veteran has appointed multiple representatives throughout the pendency of his appeal. A veteran is entitled to representation at all stages of an appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.600. However, only one veterans service organization, representative, agent, or attorney may be recognized at a time in the prosecution of a VA claim. 38 C.F.R. § 14.631 (e)(1). On April 10, 2012 the Veteran signed his VA Form 21-22a, which appointed DAV as his representative. As noted above, only one individual may be recognized at a time as a representative. Consequently, the Board concludes that the May 2012 NOD submitted by Attorney SAR is not valid. DAV, not SAR, was the Veteran’s at the time the April 2012 was submitted. Thus, SAR did not have the authority to file the NOD on the Veteran’s behalf in April 2012. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.301(a) (A Notice of Disagreement . . . may be filed by a claimant personally, or by his or her representative if a proper Power of Attorney or declaration of representative, as applicable, is on record or). Absent a valid NOD, the November 2011 rating decision, which established a 30 percent valuation for the Veteran’s service-connected bronchial asthma, is final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (2017); see also Sims, 578 F.3d 1332. Ultimately, after careful and deliberate review of the record, the Board finds the Veteran’s May 2012 NOD was not valid. Consequently, the Board concludes that the November 2011 rating decision, which established a 30 percent valuation for the Veteran’s service-connected bronchial asthma, is final. The record contains no NOD submitted by the Veteran or his authorized representative within one year of notification of the November 2011 rating decision. CLAIM TO REOPEN 3. The Veteran’s previously disallowed claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II, is reopened. In January 2009, the Veteran submitted his VA Form 21-4138. Therein, the Veteran relayed that, “this is to apply for service connection for Diabetes II secondary to exposure to Agent Orange in the service.” In October 2009, the AOJ denied service connection because the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) did not support in-service diabetes mellitus, Type II. Moreover, the AOJ observed that the Veteran’s diabetes did not develop within a year of the Veteran’s discharge from the Air Force in 1976. Finally, the AOJ concluded that the evidence would not support presumptive service connection, because it was unable to verify that the Veteran was exposed to a herbicide agent during Air Force service in Thailand. Under 38 U.S.C. § 5108, VA may reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim when “new and material” evidence is presented or secured with respect to that claim. The provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5108 require a review of all evidence submitted by or on behalf of a claimant since the last final denial on any basis to determine whether a claim must be reopened. See Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273, 282-3 (1996). “New evidence” means evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers, and “material evidence” means evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a) (2015). To warrant reopening, the new evidence must not be cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Id. In Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010), the Court held that the phrase “raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim” does not create a third element for new and material evidence; rather, it provides guidance as to whether submitted evidence meets the new and material requirements. Id. The Court emphasized that this standard is a “low threshold” for reopening. By way of example, the Court explained that if the newly submitted evidence would likely trigger entitlement to a VA medical nexus examination were the claim reopened, the new evidence would raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Id. For the purpose of establishing whether new and material evidence has been submitted, the credibility of the evidence is presumed unless the evidence is inherently false or untrue or, if the evidence is in the form of a statement or other assertion, it is beyond the competence of the person making the assertion. Duran v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 216, 220 (1994); Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). In August 2015, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-4138. Therein, the Veteran posited that, “(w)hile stationed at Utapao Thailand during and after the Vietnam War, I was in P.O.L. my job was to refuel aircraft on the flightline. I worked the B-52 line, maintenance, and transit flight line. All of these are close to the perimeters around the base.” The Veteran continued with, “(t)hey came from Vietnam, after the evacuation of Saigon. I was also there during the Mayaquez incident and worked the transit flight line during this time. My duties required me to work at the edge of the runways near the perimeter of the base.” Since the finalized October 2009 rating decision, new and material evidence has been added to the record. Specifically, the Veteran’s presumptively credible August 2015 statement relates to the unestablished in-service incurrence of his current diabetes mellitus, Type II. Accordingly, the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II, is reopened.   SERVICE CONNECITON 4. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, secondary to herbicide agent exposure, is denied. In May 2012, the Veteran submitted a hand-written statement. Therein, the Veteran relayed, “I wish to have a traditional appeal for diabetes mellitus Type 2 due to exposure to herbicides. I was based at Utapao, Thailand during Vietnam war. I service aircraft from all areas (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos) on a transit tarmac. I also had picked grass around perimeter fences during slack-time in the tail-end of Vietnam war (make work jobs). I also was exposed to just about every aircraft in PACAF after evacuation of Vietnam, as we had an enormous amount of evacuees come flying into Utapao, and had 3 refugee camps there! I was also there during the Mayaquez incident.” Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted while in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). In order to establish service connection for the claimed disorder on a direct basis, generally there must be probative evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). In each case where service connection for any disability is sought, due consideration shall be given to the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service as shown by the Veteran’s service record, the official history of each organization in which the Veteran served, the Veteran’s medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a). In making these determinations, the Board must consider and assess the credibility and weight of all evidence in the claim file, including the medical and lay evidence, to determine its probative value. In doing so, the Board must provide its reasoning for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. See Masors v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 181 (1992); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Board must give the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). VA regulations provide that certain diseases associated with exposure to herbicide agents may be presumed to have been incurred in service even if there is no evidence of the disease in service, provided the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6) are met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e). A Veteran who, during active service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a). The last date on which such a Veteran shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent shall be the last date on which he or she served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962 and ending on May 7, 1975. The term “herbicide agent” means a chemical in an herbicide, including Agent Orange, used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. A veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served between April 1, 1968, and August 31, 1971, in a unit that, as determined by the Department of Defense, operated in or near the Korean DMZ in an area in which herbicides are known to have been applied during that period, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(iv). If a Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service, the following diseases 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: AL amyloidosis; chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne; Type 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes); Hodgkin's disease; all chronic B cell leukemias; multiple myeloma; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; Parkinson's disease; early-onset peripheral neuropathy; porphyria cutanea tarda; prostate cancer; respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx or trachea); soft-tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma); and ischemic heart disease, (including, but not limited to, acute, subacute, and old myocardial infarction); atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (including coronary spasm) and coronary bypass surgery; and stable, unstable and Prinzmetal's angina), 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e). The diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e) shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, except that chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, and early-onset peripheral neuropathy shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). Where the evidence does not warrant presumptive service connection, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that an appellant is not precluded from establishing service connection with proof of direct causation. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). It is the policy of VA to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent with the facts in each case, with all reasonable doubt to be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When all of the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the appellant prevailing in either event, or whether a fair preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). On September 25, 1989, a treatment notation was generated at the Welborn Clinic in Evansville, Indiana. At that time, the Veteran did not report a history of diabetes mellitus. In May 2009, VA notified the Veteran that it was working his claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II. At that time, VA notified the Veteran of the additional evidence that he could submit to substantiate his in-service exposure to a herbicide agent. Board review of the entire appellate record reflects that the evidence submitted by the Veteran consists of various statements of his duties at U-Tapao Air Base, Thailand, which are highlighted below. In October 2009, a memorandum on herbicide use in Thailand, during the Vietnam Era, was associated with the Veteran’s claims file. Therein, it was noted that, “the Thailand CHECO report . . . does indicate sporadic use of non-tactical (commercial) herbicides within fenced perimeters.” Also, the memorandum noted that, “(if) claim is based on servicing or working on aircraft that flew bombing missions over Vietnam, please be advised that there is no presumption of ‘secondary exposure’ based on . . . working on aircraft . . ..” Important to this Veteran’s entitlement claim, the memorandum revealed that, “(i)f the veteran’s claim is based on general herbicide use within the base, such as small-scale brush or weed clearing activity along the flight line . . . there are no records of such activity involving a tactical herbicide . . ..” In October 2009, a formal finding from the coordinator at the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) was associated with the Veteran’s claims file. Therein, the coordinator revealed that, “(w)e have determined that there are negative results to develop for Vietnam service and/or herbicide exposure.” The coordinator also indicated that, “(a)ll efforts to obtain the needed military information have been exhausted, further attempts are futile and that based on these facts the information is not available.” In March 2013, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-4138. Therein, the Veteran posited that, “when I filed for exposure of herbicides, there wasn’t a presumptive for Thailand. In 2010, they recognized that herbicides where used on the base I was stationed at in 1975. Utapao, Thailand. I worked in P.O.L. (petroleum, oil, lubricants) and covered all areas of the flight lines (they had 2) and a large amount of the tarmacs. I worked the transit flightline mostly, but while doing my tour, I worked Maint. on B-52s, and several areas around the base. I even pulled weeds around the Bulk Plant, after the war ended and they gave us a lot of make-work jobs to keep us busy. My health has went downhill since this time, and I have always felt that it was because of exposure.” In May 2014, the Veteran submitted a hand-written statement. Therein, the Veteran posited that, “I said in my prior letters . . . that I thought I was exposed due to planes I worked on with 2 mechanics after the fall of Saigon. Our base was a landing zone for every kind of military aircraft coming from Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and I was asked to pump the fuel out of aircraft and purge their tanks.” The Veteran continued his duty description with, “I wasn’t given an opportunity to get the hundreds of aircraft that I was all over checked to see if they were contaminated.” In July 2015, the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) were associated with his electronic claims file. After careful and deliberate review of the Veteran’s STRs, the Board found no indication of an in-service incurrence of diabetes mellitus, Type II. In fact, the only mention of diabetes was the Veteran’s denial of a family history. In July 2015, the Veteran submitted his VA Form 9. Therein, the Veteran posited that, “my job was to provide support to the transient line for B-52s, C-123s, C-130 gunboats and any other transient aircraft, including CIA aircraft, transiting the region. I helped purge fuel tanks . . .. I am sure some of those aircraft flew in areas where agent orange was sprayed and I believe some of the aircraft sprayed chemicals. I work on the B-52 line that were active in Vietnam. This line was on the end of the flightline near the perimeter of the airfield. I was involved in special missions where I was in fuel trucks driven to a special communication line to supply fuel for air condition units for these communications sub-stations. I feel very strongly that I was exposed to Agent Orange that was used to keep the vegetation cleared around the perimeter and on the airplanes that I serviced.” In August 2015, the Veteran submitted a statement in support of claim. Therein, the Veteran posited that, “my job was to refuel aircraft on the flightline, I worked the B-52 line, maintenance, and the transit flight line. All of these are close to the perimeters around the base.” The Veteran continued with, “I was asked to purge tanks on several aircraft that was in a ‘top secret’ clearance area. I did this for a month or more just me and two maintenance troops assigned the same task. All of the aircrafts were from Vietnam. They came from Vietnam, afer the evacuation of Saigon. I was also there during the Mayaquez incident and worked the transit flight line during this time. My duties required me to work at the edge of the runways near the perimeter of the base.” In December 2016, the Veterans military personal records (MPRs) were associated with his electronic claims file. The Board notes that there are numerous notations about the Veteran’s duties while he was assigned to Grissom AFB, Indiana. However, after deliberate and careful review, the Board found only one document that described the Veteran’s duties while assigned to U-Tapao Airfield, Thailand. During his performance report for Sergeant, the following duties were noted: “Base Fuels Operator Distribution Section. Inspects, performs and records operator’s maintenance on mobile refueling equipment and the Pritchard Hydrant Refueling system. Operates these units and systems to refuel / defuel aircraft. Maintains quality control. Completes applicable accounting forms on all fuels transactions. Makes numerous aircraft fuel servicings per month.” Within the same document, no additional duties were described for the Veteran, during his period of service on the U-Tapao air base, in the facts, specific achievements, and/or other comments sections. In June 2018, a problem list was generated at the Memphis, Tennessee VA medical clinic (VAMC). At that time, the VA provider reported that the Veteran currently had poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, Type II. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertion that he was exposed to herbicides while on active duty service in Thailand. Neither the Veteran, nor the evidence of record, suggests he was exposed to herbicides while serving inside the territorial land boarders of the Republic of Vietnam. Because the Veteran’s available service personnel records do not show that he had in-country duty in Vietnam, his active service does not meet the regulatory definition of Vietnam service found in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(iii) and upheld by the Federal Circuit in Haas. See Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d. 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008) cert. denied 129 S. Ct. 1002 (2009) (upholding as permissible VA’s regulatory interpretation of “service in Vietnam” as requiring in-country duty or visitation in Vietnam). Accordingly, because the Veteran did not have active service in Vietnam, his in-service herbicide exposure cannot be presumed. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. However, VA regulations recognize additional methods of establishing in-service exposure to herbicides. Although not binding on the Board, VA has issued manuals for use by its adjudicators. This includes VA Adjudication Procedures Manual, M21-1. A section of this manual addresses herbicide exposure in Thailand during the Vietnam Era. (In this regard, the sense of the word “herbicide” as used in the manual is understood to mean “herbicide agent” as used in the regulation.) The manual directs rating specialists to concede herbicide exposure where a Veteran served at a specific Royal Thai Air Force Base (“RTAFB”) and served as a U.S. Air Force security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of the security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter as shown by evidence of daily work duties, performance evaluation reports, or other credible evidence. See M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, 1.H.5.b. The Board notes that the majority of troops in Thailand during the Vietnam Era were stationed at the Royal Thai Air Force Bases (RTAFB) at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang. Again, 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. Initially, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current diagnosis for diabetes mellitus, Type II; therefore, the first requisite element of a service-connection claim has been substantiated. See Hickson, 12 Vet. App. at 253. However, Board review of the claims file reveals that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus did not develop for more than a decade after his active duty Air Force service ended. Consequently, the Veteran’s entitlement claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II, is only viable under the umbrella created by 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.309 (e) & 3.307(a)(6)(ii). As revealed earlier, the Veteran’s claims file contained only one military-generated description of his duties on the U-Tapao Air Force Base, Thailand. None of the official duties listed in the December 1974 Sergeant Performance Report would support a finding that the Veteran’s daily duties in any way corresponded with those of a security policeman, security patrol dog handler, and/or a member of a security police squadron. The Veteran’s credible and competent statement(s) that he regularly conducted “make-work,” to include pulling weeds, does not support the conclusion that as a Fuels Supervisor, Distribution Section for the 635th Supply Squadron (PACAF), he ever came into contact with a herbicide agent. The October 2009 VA memorandum supports a conclusion that, due to sporadic utilization, on-base weed pulling may have led to contact with a non-tactical, commercial herbicide. The October 2009 memorandum also relays that there is no presumption of secondary exposure to herbicide agents based on aircraft maintenance. Ultimately, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence stands counter to a conclusion that the Veteran was exposed to a herbicide agent during service in Thailand. The Board finds that the Veteran’s duties as a Fuels Supervisor do not correspond with those of a security policeman, security patrol dog handler, and/or a member of a security police squadron. + Ultimately, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence stands counter to the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus, Type II, claim. Since the preponderance of the evidence is against this entitlement claim, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), regarding reasonable doubt, are not applicable. The Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II, must be denied, because the preponderance of the evidence weighs against his claim. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD RLBJ, Associate Counsel