Citation Nr: 19110010 Decision Date: 02/07/19 Archive Date: 02/07/19 DOCKET NO. 17-23 505 DATE: February 7, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for disabilities associated with exposure to Agent Orange is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the credible and probative evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides while in-service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to disabilities associated with Agent Orange have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1967 to May 1971, in March 1991, October 2001 to September 2002, from March 2003 to September 2003, from October 2003 to September 2004 and from October 2004 to January 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision. Entitlement to service connection for disabilities associated with Agent Orange Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. That determination requires a finding of current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309 (1993); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992). Service connection may be granted for a disability diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability is due to disease or injury that was incurred or aggravated in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). If a Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent (e.g., Agent Orange) during active service numerous diseases are presumed service-connected due to this exposure. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). In the current matter, the Veteran claims his exposure to herbicides occurred while he was stationed at U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) in Thailand. VA has determined that U.S. Air Force Veterans who served on RTAFBs at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang, near the air base perimeter anytime between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975, may have been exposed to herbicides. However, to benefit from a presumption of herbicide exposure at one of the previously mentioned air bases, a Veteran must have served 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 military occupational specialty, performance evaluation, or other credible evidence. While the Veteran’s military personnel file confirms that he was stationed a U-Tapao from October 1968 to October 1969, the records also establish that the Veteran did not serve as a security policeman, security patrol dog handler, or a member of a security police squadron. Thus, the question remaining is if the credible evidence of record established that the Veteran otherwise served near the air base perimeter. The Veteran’s personnel file indicated that while at U-Tapao he was a crew member and assistant crew chief of a B52 Aircraft Maintenance Squadron. His duties were responsible for all maintenance performed on aircraft, preforming aircraft preflight and launch and terminates recovery actions from the recovery team. He was noted to accomplish weekly records check of forms and coordinate with plans and scheduling and material control. In November 2012, the Veteran submitted a statement which indicated that due to the location of his billet tent and the airfield, he had to use Perimeter Road on the base as a means of access to the airfield. He stated that he also had to use Perimeter Road to fulfill his job duties for the B52 equipment. He stated he had to fuel aircraft with a hose that had been near the vegetation that had been killed due to the defoliant used. He stated he was exposed to those chemicals daily. In January 2015, a Defense Personnel Information Retrieval System (DPRIS) response regarding the Veteran’s claims of exposure to herbicide while at U-Tapao stated that after a review of the data provided about the Veteran’s claim, there was no documentation that the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange or tactical herbicides during his duties in Southeast Asia. Though the Board acknowledges the Veteran’s service at U-Tapao RTAFB, the objective evidence of record does not support a finding that the Veteran served near the air base perimeter, as shown by military occupational specialty, performance evaluation, or other credible evidence. The Veteran’s performance reports do not specifically state or indicate that he had any prolonged time at or near to the base perimeter and the Veteran’s assertion that he travelled Perimeter Road does not provide enough evidence upon which to establish exposure to herbicides sufficient to support a finding of service connection. As such, and based on the foregoing, the Board does not find that the evidence or record supports a finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides while stationed a U-Tapao RTAFB. Additionally, the Board also notes that the Veteran did not identify any specific disability for which he is seeking service connection. As stated above, service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Therefore, the requirement that there be current disability has not been met. Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service-connected benefits to cases where there is a current disability. In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). The Board finds that service connection is not warranted for exposure to herbicides because the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran had such exposure or that a diagnosis of any associated disability has been made. Although the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran’s claim, absent a confirmed diagnosis of a disability and etiology linked to the Veteran’s active duty service, service connection cannot be granted. Accordingly, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not for application, and the claim must be denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Parrish, Associate Counsel