Citation Nr: 19166350 Decision Date: 08/27/19 Archive Date: 08/27/19 DOCKET NO. 18-44 068 DATE: August 27, 2019 ORDER Service connection for prostate cancer is granted. Service connection for ischemic heart disease (to include coronary artery disease) is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s prostate cancer is presumptively related to his service in Thailand as a result of exposure (on a facts-found basis) to herbicide agents, to include Agent Orange. 2. The Veteran’s ischemic heart disease, to include his coronary artery disease, is presumptively related to his service in Thailand as a result of exposure (on a facts-found basis) to herbicide agents, to include Agent Orange. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for ischemic heart disease, to include coronary artery disease, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.306, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from November 1960 to October 1962. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2018 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran's claims were previously denied largely based on the finding that the Veteran did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The Board will address both issues together because the analysis for these two issues is essentially the same. 1. Service connection for prostate cancer (to include as a result of exposure to herbicide agents) 2. Service connection for ischemic heart disease, to include coronary artery disease (to include as a result of exposure to herbicide agents) Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). There is a presumption of service connection for certain diseases, such as ischemic heart disease (which includes coronary artery disease (CAD)) and prostate cancer, associated with exposure to herbicide agents, even if there is no record or evidence of the disease during active service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307, 3.309(e). Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during active military, naval, or air service are presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). There are no regulatory or statutory presumptions regarding herbicide exposure in Thailand. However, VA extends special consideration to reports of herbicide exposure on a factual basis to veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases during the Vietnam era, specifically the Royal Thai Air Force Bases (RTAFB) of U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang. The duties that are considered to have placed veterans on or near the perimeter include security policeman, security patrol dog handlers, members of the security police squadron, or those who are otherwise shown to have served near the air base perimeter as evidenced by their military occupational specialty (MOS), daily work duties, performance evaluations, and other credible evidence. In this case, the evidence of record overwhelmingly supports a finding that the Veteran had service in Thailand that would have exposed him to herbicide agents. A 1962 military personnel record shows that the Veteran received a Letter of Commendation from Army Command for his service in Udorn, Thailand with the 999th Signal Company. That commendation specifically lists the Veteran by name. The Veteran submitted multiple photos to the VA that depict his living conditions while in Thailand and show that his unit was assigned to living quarters very close to the perimeter of the air base. The Veteran also provided testimony at a January 2019 hearing before the undersigned where he explained his unit lived and worked very close to the perimeter of the airbase, there was no foliage in the area, and they took outdoors showers with water from used barrels that appear to fit the description of former Agent Orange containers. Additionally, the Veteran submitted lay statements from other military service members that noted the presence of his company at Udorn airbase. The Board finds the Veteran’s credible testimony to be sufficient evidence to show that he spent significant time near the perimeter of these airbases in Thailand and accordingly, the Board finds that he was exposed to herbicide agents during service. In the present case, the Veteran has a diagnosis of as ischemic heart disease (coronary artery disease) and prostate cancer. VA treatment records from 2018 noted history of both prostate cancer and ischemic heart disease. A June 2018 private treatment record shows a diagnosis of ischemic heart disease or CAD. A May 2018 private treatment record shows a diagnosis of prostate cancer. Ischemic heart disease (including coronary artery disease) and prostate cancer are both diseases subject to presumptive service connection (under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e)) for Veterans who were exposed to herbicide agents. As it has been shown, on a facts-found basis, that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while he was stationed in Thailand, service connection for ischemic heart disease (coronary artery disease) and prostate cancer are warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307, 3.309. VICTORIA MOSHIASHWILI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Williams, 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.