Citation Nr: 21002108 Decision Date: 01/12/21 Archive Date: 01/12/21 DOCKET NO. 19-20 617 DATE: January 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma due to herbicide agent exposure is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 2. The evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents in Vietnam. CONCLUSION OF LAW With reasonable doubt resolved in favor of the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma due to herbicide agent exposure are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1113, 1116, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309(e). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1962 to March 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2018 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for lymphoma. In January 2021, the Veteran testified at a Virtual Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The hearing transcript has not yet been associated with the record. As the instant decision results in a complete grant of the benefit sought, it is not necessary at this time. Entitlement to service connection for Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury suffered or disease contracted in active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service injury or disease; and (3) a relationship between the two. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). A veteran, who, during active military service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning in January 1962 and ending in May 1975, is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). If a veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during active military, naval, or air service, certain diseases, including Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, are presumptively service connected. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). For the following reasons, the Board finds that service connection for Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma on a presumptive basis is warranted. VA treatment records and the November 2018 VA-contract examination confirm that the Veteran was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Thus, a disease presumptively related to herbicide agent exposure is shown. Id. The issue is whether the Veteran had qualifying Vietnam service to meet the service connection criteria for Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma on a presumptive basis. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii), 3.309(e). Personnel records confirm that the Veteran served in Korea from February 1965 to February 1966 and had Temporary Duty orders (TDY) to Southeast Asia from November 25, 1965 to January 15, 1966 with the 15th Reconnaissance Task Force (RTF). In a December 2018 Deferred Rating Decision, a rating officer reviewed the service personnel records and determined that the Veteran likely had TDY at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base. He based this determination of evidence contained on a declassified Vietnam era Department of Defense document titled CHECO for "Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report: Base Defense in Thailand." In a January 2020 Decision Review Officer (DRO) conference report, the Veteran explained that he had TDY in Tan Son Nhut, Vietnam Air Base from October 1965 to January 1966. The DRO noted that he would probably have to place a Joint Service Records Research Center (JSRRC) request to confirm the Veteran’s report. The JSRRC was contacted twice. The second JSRRC report from May 2020 stated that they were temporarily closed due to COVID-19 and would provide a status update when operations resumed. There has been no additional JSRRC response to date. In January 2020, the Veteran, through his representative, submitted what appears to be a scanned copy of an original December 1965 service member welcome packet for Bien Hoa, Vietnam Air Base that was in his possession. The Board finds that the above evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran set foot in Vietnam. Notably, there is no requirement that service in Vietnam be specifically recorded in a Veteran's service records to support a finding that the Veteran has the requisite Vietnam service. The Board must consider the Veteran's statements along with the other evidence of record in determining whether he served in Vietnam. See Parseeya-Picchione v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 171, 176 (2016) (the Board must consider lay, historical, and archival evidence, in addition to service records, in determining whether there was service in Vietnam or exposure to herbicide agents elsewhere). The Veteran’s report about Vietnam service from the January 2020 DRO conference report is consistent with personnel records confirming a TDY to Southeast Asia. Although the December 2018 rating officer determined that the assigned unit identified in personnel records was likely in Thailand, the Veteran’s reports and supporting evidence must be considered as well. Id. Notably, the submission of the December 1965 Bien Hoa, Vietnam Air Base welcome packet is persuasive supporting evidence that his TDY included Vietnam service. The Board notes that Bien Hoa and Tan Son Nhut Vietnam Air Bases are in very close proximity to each other. The varying reports about the specific assigned Vietnam air base do not undermine the Veteran’s general veracity in reporting that his confirmed November 1965 to January 1966 TDY included service in Vietnam. His service records do not conflict with his report or otherwise exclude the possibility of Vietnam service. The Board finds that the Veteran’s reports about Vietnam service constitute credible, and, therefore, satisfactory lay evidence of in-country service in Vietnam. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (each disabling condition for which a veteran seeks service connection must be considered based on factors including the basis of places, types, and circumstances of service as shown by service records). As the reasonable doubt created by this relative equipoise in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the Veteran had the requisite Vietnam service during the Vietnam era, and as such, is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (benefit of the doubt doctrine applies to any point within a claim as well as its ultimate disposition). Given the Veteran's diagnosis and the Veteran's Vietnam service, the requirements for presumptive service connection for Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma based on herbicide agent exposure are met, and service connection for Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is therefore warranted. Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. D. Simpson, 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.