Citation Nr: 20049167 Decision Date: 07/23/20 Archive Date: 07/23/20 DOCKET NO. 16-45 847 DATE: July 23, 2020 ORDER Service connection for ischemic heart disease, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, is granted. Service connection for type II diabetes mellitus, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, is granted. VETERAN’S CONTENTIONS The Veteran contends that he has ischemic heart disease and type II diabetes mellitus related to his active service. Specifically, the Veteran contends that his duties as Weapons Mechanic Specialist brought him to the U-Tapao Royal Thai Airforce Base perimeter and as a result he was exposed to herbicide agents, which resulted in the later development of ischemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Post-service treatment records document current diagnoses of ischemic heart disease and type II diabetes mellitus. 2. The Veteran served at the U-Tapao Royal Thai Airforce Base during a period when herbicide agents are known to have been used at that base. 3. The Veteran’s in-service duties brought him to the U-Tapao Royal Thai Airforce Base perimeter during his active service, as a result of which he was exposed to herbicide agents. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for ischemic heart disease are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). 2. The criteria for service connection for type II diabetes mellitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from May 1968 to May 1972. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Jurisdiction is currently with the RO in St. Louis, Missouri. In March 2019, the Board denied the issues on appeal. In January 2020, the Veteran appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a February 2020 Order pursuant to a January 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the Court vacated and remanded the Board's decision with regard to these issues. The issues are once again before the Board. Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, and entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents Generally, 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. This means that the facts establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an 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 Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). If a Veteran was exposed to certain herbicide agents during service, then certain listed diseases, including ischemic heart disease and type II diabetes mellitus, are presumptively service connected absent affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1113, 1116(a)(1), (a)(2); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(d), 3.309(e). The foregoing statutory and regulatory provisions do not establish a presumption of exposure to herbicide agents based on service in Thailand. However, current VA policy indicates that herbicides, including Agent Orange, were used at certain times and places at some military bases in Thailand during the Vietnam Era. As a result, special consideration of herbicide exposure on a factual basis for veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thai military bases during the Vietnam era is required. Specifically, if a Veteran served as an Air Force security policeman, security patrol dog handler, or member of the security police squadron, or was otherwise near the air base perimeter as shown by evidence of daily work duties, performance evaluation reports, or other credible evidence, herbicide exposure should be acknowledged. Determinations as to service connection will be based on review of the entire evidence of record, to include all pertinent medical evidence. VA must also consider all favorable lay evidence of record. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has actually observed and is within the realm of his or her personal knowledge). Here, post-service treatment records document current diagnoses of ischemic heart disease and type II diabetes mellitus. See July 2017 Mount Vernon-SOC Records. Thus, the dispositive issue is whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, which would entitle him to an award of service connection for ischemic heart disease and type II diabetes mellitus on a presumptive basis. In this regard, the Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report the approximate geographical locations of his service on the base in Thailand and the Board finds his assertions that his in-service duties placed him in close proximity of the perimeter of the base, credible. The Veteran's military service personnel records reflect that he served as a Weapons Mechanic Specialist at the U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB). The Veteran stated in correspondence received in June 2020 that as a part of his duties as a Weapons Mechanic Specialist in the Munitions Maintenance Squadron he drove an MJ-1 (jammer) bomb lift truck and various vehicles in preload and flight line which brought him to the perimeter of the U-Tapao RTAFB. The Veteran’s statements are supported by a June 2020 Buddy Statement confirming that the squadron took a daily bus back and forth on the perimeter road to the bomb pre-load area and loaded bombs in revetments barren of vegetation; and that the Veteran worked, ate, and traveled in the area near and on the perimeter. While there are no service department records on file that expressly confirm service near the perimeter of the base in Thailand, there is also no affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran did not go to the perimeter of the base. Therefore, when considering the totality of circumstances surrounding the nature of the Veteran's service and resolving all doubt in his favor, the Board finds that the Veteran's duties brought him to the perimeter of the base in Thailand in the course of his service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Thus, the Veteran's herbicide exposure is presumed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). In light of the Veteran's current diagnoses of ischemic heart disease and type II diabetes mellitus and his presumed exposure to herbicides during service based on the facts found, the Board finds that service connection for ischemic heart disease and type II diabetes mellitus is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Smith-Jennings, 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.