Citation Nr: 21000943 Decision Date: 01/06/21 Archive Date: 01/06/21 DOCKET NO. 20-23 436 DATE: January 6, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while serving in Thailand near the perimeter at the U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB). 2. The Veteran has been diagnosed with CAD. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for CAD, to include as due to herbicide exposure, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1116, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from October 1954 to October 1958 and from December 1958 to November 1983. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2019 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2020, the Veteran provided testimony at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for CAD The Veteran contends that he was exposed to herbicides, including Agent Orange, while serving in Thailand. See Hearing Transcript, p. 3. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). For Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during an applicable period are presumed to have been exposed to tactical herbicides; for those Veterans, if they later develop certain diseases, such as CAD, a relationship between that disease and service is presumed. Moreover, VA has determined that there was significant use of herbicides on the fenced-in perimeters of bases in Thailand intended to eliminate vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes as evidenced in a declassified Vietnam era Department of Defense (DoD) document titled “Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report: Base Defense in Thailand.” VA Compensation Service has acknowledged that Veterans who served in Thailand during the Vietnam era may have been exposed to tactical herbicides procured from Vietnam, or commercial herbicides of much greater strength and with characteristics of tactical herbicides. See Parseeya-Picchione v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 171, 177 (2016). As such, VA determined that special consideration is warranted for veterans who served during the Vietnam Era at one of the Royal Thai Air Force Bases (RTAFB) at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, or Don Muang, and whose duties placed them at or near sites where herbicides were used. Regarding a current disability, the Veteran underwent a VA heart conditions examination in April 2018. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with several heart-related conditions, including CAD. See Apr. 2018 C&P Examination, p. 2. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s CAD qualified within the generally accepted medical definition of ischemic heart disease (IHD). Id. at 3. CAD is one of the diseases presumptively associated with herbicide exposure. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d), 3.309(e). Accordingly, the crucial question on appeal is whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents in service. The Veteran contends that he served in Thailand for a year initially and then made over 20 trips other trips to the country from 1971 to 1975. See Hearing Transcript, pp. 7-8. The Veteran also asserted that on one occasion, he was selected as a radio operator to serve on a mission to travel from Thailand to Japan; he testified that en route, the plane stopped in Da Nang to refuel, and to fix radio problems. Id. at 5. The Veteran’s military personnel records support his contentions that he served in Thailand. A July 1967 Performance Report notes that the Veteran was located at the U-Tapao RTAFB in Thailand from December 1966 to July 1967. See Military Personnel Record, pp. 48-49. His duties as an Assistant Radio Shift Supervisor were described as supervising and performing maintenance on all radio systems used in assigned aircraft and that these duties were performed both on the flight line and in-shop. Id. at 49. The rating official further noted that the Veteran had an additional duty as a flying radio technician. Id. This required the Veteran to fly combat support missions on problem aircrafts to determine issues with radio systems. Id. The rating official also noted an instance in which the Veteran was able to correct a malfunction while flying the aircraft. Id. A December 1967 Performance Report also notes that the Veteran was located at the U-Tapao RTAFB from July 1967 to November 1967. See id. at pp. 46-47. The rating official noted that the Veteran served as an Airborne Radio Maintenance Technician, in which the Veteran performed flight line maintenance on aircraft. Id. at 47. The file also contains March 1967 and May 1967 Medical Recommendations for Flying Duty that indicate that the Veteran was to fly to and from U-Tapao RTAFB. See STR – Medical, pp. 79-80. After careful review of the record, the Board finds that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of herbicide exposure. First, the evidence supports service near the perimeter of U-Tapao RTAFB. The July and December 1967 Performance Reports place the Veteran at U-Tapao RTAFB from at least December 1966 to November 1967 performing aircraft maintenance on the flight line near the perimeter. In addition, the Veteran testified that as part of his duties he embarked on one mission as a radio operator, and he stopped in Da Nang, Vietnam; in this particular case, there’s no reason to doubt the Veteran’s detailed testimony, particularly where the evidence of record shows relatively fluid movement throughout Southeast Asia as part of his job duties as an airborne radio maintenance technician. See Military Personnel Records p. 29. In sum, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise regarding the Veteran’s exposure to herbicide agents. The Veteran’s CAD is presumed to be due to herbicide agents. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(e). Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for CAD is warranted. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Watkins, 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.