Citation Nr: 18159241 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/18/18 DOCKET NO. 15-44 233 DATE: December 18, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disability, to include as due to Agent Orange exposure, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence of record establishes that the Veteran was presumptively exposed to herbicide agents during his active service at Korat Air Base, Thailand from September 29, 1969 to December 28, 1970 as a fuel specialist. 2. The Veteran’s diagnosed atherosclerotic heart disease is presumed to have been caused by his herbicide agent exposure in service in Thailand. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for atherosclerotic heart disease, to include as due to Agent Orange exposure have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1116, 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the United States Air Force (USAF) from September 1967 to September 1971, to include service in Thailand. In connection with this appeal, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2018. The Veteran seeks service connection for a cardiovascular disability (originally claimed as ischemic heart disease). He maintains that he was exposed to Agent Orange while serving as a fuel specialist close to the base perimeter at Korat Air Force Base in Thailand. After a brief recitation of the laws and regulations governing service connection, to include those pertaining to Agent Orange exposure, the Board will grant service connection for atherosclerotic heart disease as secondary to Agent Orange exposure in Thailand. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period starting on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence of non-exposure. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307. Service incurrence for certain diseases, including ischemic heart disease, to include atherosclerotic heart disease, and prostate cancer, will be presumed on the basis of an association with certain herbicide agents (e.g., Agent Orange). 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 (a)(6), 3.309(e). Such a presumption, however, requires evidence of actual or presumed exposure to herbicide agents. Id. VA 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. Therefore, when herbicide related claims from veterans with Thailand service are received, VA is instructed to evaluate the service treatment and service personnel records to determine whether a veteran’s service activities involved duty on or near the perimeter of the military base where that veteran was stationed. The majority of troops in Thailand during the Vietnam era were stationed at the Royal Thai Air Force Bases of U-Tapao, Upon, 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 agent exposure should be acknowledged on a facts found or direct basis. However, this applies only during the Vietnam era, from February 28, 1961 to May 7, 1975. VA is thus directed that if evidence shows that a veteran performed duties along the military base perimeter, herbicide agent exposure should be acknowledged on a facts found or direct basis. The Veteran filed his service connection claims for a cardiovascular disability (originally claimed as ischemic heart disease (IHD) in May 2015. The RO denied his claim in the appealed August 2015 rating. The Board will resolve reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor and award service connection for atherosclerotic heart disease as secondary to Agent Orange exposure. The evidence shows that the Veteran has been diagnosed as having atherosclerotic heart disease. Evidence against the claim includes a memorandum, prepared by the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), reflecting that there was insufficient information required to verify the Veteran’s exposure to Agent Orange exposure in Thailand. JSRRC noted that there was no evidence that the Veteran had performed a type of duty that would have required him to work at the base perimeter. Evidence supportive of the claim includes the Veteran’s credible testimony before the undersigned in December 2018. At the Board hearing, the Veteran testified that while he was stationed at Korat, his military occupational specialist (MOS) as a fuel specialist in involved tasks with aircraft and working around the perimeter of the Korat Air Base, Thailand. The Veteran is found to be highly credible, and his lay statements have been consistent with each other and his service records, which pertinently disclose that he had served at Korat AFB, Thailand from September 29, 1969 to December 28, 1970 as a fuel specialist. As such, the Board has no reason to doubt the veracity of his statements. The Veteran’s statements that he worked on the perimeter of Korat are consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a). As such, the evidence is judged to be sufficient to establish that the Veteran was presumptively exposed to herbicide agents during his active service in Thailand. As noted, when a Veteran is diagnosed with IHD, which includes atherosclerotic hearing disease, and is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents during service, service connection will be granted unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, which is not present here. (Continued on the next page)   As such, the Board will resolve reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor and finds that the criteria for service connection for atherosclerotic heart disease, to include as due to Agent Orange exposure have been met, and the Veteran’s claim is granted. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Carole Kammel, Counsel