Citation Nr: 19154451 Decision Date: 07/15/19 Archive Date: 07/15/19 DOCKET NO. 16-24 938A DATE: July 15, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran is diagnosed with type II diabetes mellitus. 2. The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his period of service in Thailand. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for type II diabetes mellitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1137, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1966 until December 1969. During that time, the Veteran served on Korat RTAFB, Thailand from June 1967 until June 1968. This matter come before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2014 rating decision of the Oakland, California Regional Office (RO). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Only chronic diseases listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a) (2017) are entitled to the presumptive service connection provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b). Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 Fed. Cir. 2013). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Diabetes Mellitus The clinical evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran has been diagnosed with type II diabetes mellitus. See January 2015 VA Medical Report. Certain diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents used in support of military operations in the Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) during the Vietnam era will be considered to have been incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (a)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6). If a Veteran served in the U.S. Air Force in Thailand during the Vietnam era at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat or Don Muang Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) as an Air Force 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, herbicide exposure should be conceded on a facts-found or direct basis. The diseases that are entitled to presumptive service connection based on herbicide exposure are listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e), presumptive service connection based on Agent Orange exposure is available for type II diabetes. The Veteran maintains that his currently diagnosed diabetes is related to in-service herbicide exposure while serving in Thailand. The Veteran submitted a portion of his 1968 military personnel record showing that he served with the Communications Squadron at Korat RTAFB, Thailand. In a 2014 Notice of Disagreement statement provided by the Veteran, he stated that the air conditioning and humidifier units in his building would suck in and circulate contaminated air throughout the building. The Veteran also adds that he would ride the bus through the perimeter of the base several times per day. The Veteran also asserts that during his time at the base he contracted an unknown illness diagnosed as a flu like syndrome. A spinal puncture was performed which was indicated as “clean.” See Service Treatment Record pg. 17. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran did not serve in a position which VA has conceded as being exposed to herbicides on the base; however, the Board finds that the Veteran’s travel to and from the base required him to travel through the perimeter several times per day. Therefore, the Board finds that based on the Veteran’s competent and credible lay statement regarding his travel through the base perimeter while serving at Korat RTAFB, Thailand, all reasonable doubt should be resolved in his favor and it is at least as likely as not that he meets the criteria for conceding exposure to herbicide agents during active military service in Thailand. Resolving any doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand during the Vietnam Era has been conceded. Accordingly, service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is granted on a presumptive basis. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.309(e). Cynthia M. Bruce Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Hatfield, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.