Citation Nr: 20042346 Decision Date: 06/23/20 Archive Date: 06/23/20 DOCKET NO. 18-05 044 DATE: June 23, 2020 ORDER Service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT The Veteran’s diagnosed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is presumed to have been caused by his herbicide exposure in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The criteria for service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from August 1966 to July 1970, to include service in Thailand. In January 2018, the Veteran requested a Board hearing. In April 2020, the Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing. As such, the Veteran’s hearing request is considered to have been withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704. Service Connection In seeking VA disability compensation, a veteran generally seeks to establish that a current disability results from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. “Service connection” basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if pre-existing such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for certain diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, even though there is no record of such disease during service, if they manifest to a compensable degree any time after service, in a veteran who had active military, naval, or air service for at least 90 days, during the period beginning on January 9, 1962 and ending on May 7, 1975, in the Republic of Vietnam, including the waters offshore, and other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in Vietnam. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(e), 3.313. This presumption may be rebutted by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. § 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The Republic of Vietnam includes the 12 nautical mile territorial sea. See Procopio v. Wilkie, No. 17-1821 (Fed Cir. 2019). VA policy is to recognize that special consideration of herbicide agent exposure on facts found or direct basis should be extended to those veterans serving during the Vietnam era whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. Such duties would include, but are not limited to, those involving service 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 facts found or direct basis. The Veteran is currently diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which he asserts is due to herbicide exposure during his active service. The Veteran’s service records show that he served at the Udon Royal Thai Airforce Base from September 1968 to September 1969. The Veteran reported that his duties required him to go near the perimeter. He reported that he made deliveries all around the base, including near the perimeter and near the flight line. He reported that he helped load and unload aircraft, which were next to the perimeter. He reported that he was required to guard the perimeter for defense of the base. Accordingly, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents. As noted, when a veteran is diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma 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. The Veteran’s treatment records show that he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In October 2016, Dr. John Prekezes reported that the Veteran was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in September 2016 and opined that the Veteran’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was related to his herbicide agent exposure. As noted, when a veteran is diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma 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. Accordingly, the Veteran’s claim is granted. REASONS FOR REMAND Regarding the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss, the Veteran’s STRs show a 10 decibel or more shift at the 500, 3000 and 4000 Hertz levels between his July 1966 entrance physical and his May 1970 separation physical. The Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination in January 2017. The VA audiologist diagnosed bilateral hearing loss and provided a negative nexus opinion because the Veteran’s hearing was listed as normal at discharge. However, the VA examiner did not discuss the threshold shifts in the Veteran’s hearing between his entrance and separation physicals. In addition, the Veteran reported that he spent a considerable amount of time on and near the flight line. The Veteran reported that he had various roles in service that involved frequent noise exposure. The Veteran reported that he worked as a security policeman and was placed directly next to aircrafts without any hearing protecting. The Veteran reported that he worked as an assistant machine gunner and was not issued hearing protection for this position. The examiner also did not address these lay statements. Accordingly, the Veteran should be afforded a new VA examination to obtain valid audiological resting results and an opinion on the significance, if any, of the threshold shifts in hearing acuity during the Veteran’s active service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiology examination. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that any hearing loss either began during or was otherwise caused by his active service.   The examiner should specifically comment on the clinical significance, if any, of threshold shifts in the Veteran’s hearing acuity during his active service and the Veteran’s reported military noise exposure. Timothy Berryman Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B.White, 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.