Citation Nr: 20072355 Decision Date: 11/10/20 Archive Date: 11/10/20 DOCKET NO. 15-19 197 DATE: November 10, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus due to herbicide exposure is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of type II diabetes mellitus. 2. The evidence is at least in equipoise regarding whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing service connection for type II diabetes mellitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1971 to July 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a hearing in May 2018. The Board remanded this matter in July 2018, and it is now returned to the Board for further appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus due to herbicide exposure Service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). In general, service connection requires competent and credible 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 Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). VA regulations provide that a veteran who had active military, naval, or air service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam Era 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. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(iii). Additionally, VA has extended its presumption of herbicide exposure to Vietnam Era veterans who served in Thailand at certain designated bases and whose duties placed him or her on or near the perimeter of the base where herbicide was sprayed. VA policy extends the presumption of herbicide exposure to Royal Thai Air Bases (RTAFB), including U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang. It is VA policy that herbicide exposure be acknowledged on a facts found or direct basis if a United States Air Force veteran served at one of the RTAFB as a security policeman, a security patrol dog handler, a member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by military occupational specialty (MOS), performance evaluations, or other credible evidence from February 28, 1961, to May 7, 1975. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence as to any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA will resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Here, the record establishes that the Veteran has type II diabetes mellitus, which is listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) as a disease presumed to be associated with herbicide agent exposure. The record also reflects that the Veteran served at Royal Thai Air Force Base Udorn in 1973 and 1974. The Veteran has submitted credible evidence that the nature of his duties at Udorn Air Base likely resulted in exposure to herbicide agents along the base flight line and perimeter. The Veteran submitted a written statement reporting that his duties as an aircraft mechanic required he spend the majority of his day on the flight line, and that he spent breaks in the grassy areas nearby the tarmacs. He also testified at the May 2018 Board hearing that he frequently needed to go near or even cross the base perimeter to attend regular trainings. The Veteran submitted photographs documenting the location of his training and proximity to the base perimeter. There is no evidence that directly contradicts the Veteran's account. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board concludes that herbicide exposure should be conceded in this case. As a result, the criteria for service connection for type II diabetes have been met. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Zachery S.C. Luce, 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.