Citation Nr: 20043749 Decision Date: 06/29/20 Archive Date: 06/29/20 DOCKET NO. 18-20 072 DATE: June 29, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as secondary to toxic herbicide exposure is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, to include as secondary to toxic herbicide exposure is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the Navy from December 1960 to December 1964 and from January 1963 to January 1969. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 Regional Office (RO) rating decision. The issues on appeal were previously before the Board in May 2019 and were denied. The Veteran timely appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims (CAVC) which granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) in March 2020 vacating the Board’s decision and remanding the claims for further development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as secondary to toxic herbicide exposure is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, to include as secondary to toxic herbicide exposure is remanded. The Veteran asserts that he was exposed to toxic herbicides while serving aboard the USS CHICAGO (CG-11), during the Vietnam War, and that his current diagnosis of diabetes and coronary artery disease are due to this exposure. Recent case law has affected how claims of entitlement to service -connection presumptively linked to herbicide exposure during the Vietnam War are adjudicated, primarily for those veterans who served in the coastal waters of Vietnam. Briefly, a veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era is presumed to have been exposed during to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(iii). The Vietnam era is the period beginning on February 28, 1961, and ending on May 7, 1975, for veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam, and the period beginning on February 28, 1961, and ending on May 7, 1975, in all other cases. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (29)(A). The phrase “the Republic of Vietnam” now includes the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of Vietnam. As a result, the presumption of exposure to herbicide agents extends to veterans who served within that area, and such veterans are entitled to presumptive service connection under 38 U.S.C. § 1116, so long as they meet the section’s other requirements. Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Here, the Veteran’s service personnel records indicate that he served aboard CHICAGO between May 1964 to June 1966. The Veteran’s stated that CHICAGO spent a considerable amount of time in the Gulf of Tonkin while monitoring aircraft traffic in what was designated the Positive Identification and Radar Advisory Zone (PIRAZ) which, in turn, provided protection over ships conducting air operations out of Yankee Station, which is also in the vicinity of the Gulf of Tonkin. However, it is currently unclear whether the CHICAGO was within the 12 nautical mile territorial sea at any point while the Veteran served aboard the ship. Therefore, more information is needed before the Board can make a fully informed decision.   The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to verify the Veteran’s asserted in-service exposure to herbicide agents, including a review of the USS CHIGAGO ship deck logs. If more details are needed, contact the Veteran to request the information. If there is still insufficient information to verify exposure to herbicide agents, issue a Formal Finding outlining the steps taken to assist the Veteran and notify the Veteran of VA's inability to verify the in-service herbicide agent exposure. The Board is particularly interested in the time frame from June to September 1966, where CHICAGO served in the Gulf of Tonkin, as well as the short period of time prior to June 1966 where, as the Veteran notes, the command history was redacted. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Vample, Associate Counsel