Citation Nr: 21002211 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 20-21 067 DATE: January 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served at U-Tapao Air Force Base during the Vietnam era and provided a credible account of engaging in activities at the perimeter of the base along the fence line. 2. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus type II. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus type II are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from June 1965 to July 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the April 2017 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as due to herbicide exposure. The Veteran contends that his diabetes mellitus is related to his military service, to include herbicide exposure during his time served at U-Tapao Air Force Base in Thailand. Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for certain diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents, 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(c), 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 following diseases are deemed associated with herbicide exposure under VA law: AL amyloidosis, Chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, Type 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes), Hodgkin’s disease, Ischemic heart disease (including, but not limited to, acute, subacute, and old myocardial infarction; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (including coronary spasm) and coronary bypass surgery; and stable, unstable and Prinzmetal’s angina), all chronic B-cell leukemias (including, but not limited to, hairy-cell leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia), Multiple myeloma, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, early onset peripheral neuropathy, Porphyria cutanea tarda, Prostate cancer, Respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea), and Soft-tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi’s sarcoma, or mesothelioma). 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (c). With regard to Thailand, VA has acknowledged that there was significant use of herbicide agents on the fenced-in perimeters of military bases in Thailand intended to eliminate vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes. If a veteran served in the U.S. Air Force in Thailand during the Vietnam era at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat or Don Muang Royal Thai Air Force Base as an Air Force security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS), performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, herbicide agent exposure should be conceded on a facts-found or direct basis. This allows for presumptive service connection of the diseases associated with herbicide exposure. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). It has been theorized that the herbicides used on the Thailand base perimeters may have been either tactical, procured from the Republic of Vietnam, or a commercial variant of much greater strength and with the characteristics of tactical herbicides. In an October 2020 statement from the Veteran, he reported that during his military service, he served with patrol Squadron 47 which was station at U-Tapao Airbase in Thailand. The Veteran stated that he was assigned to Crew 4 and flew missions in support of Vietnam War/Operation Market Time. The Veteran also reported that his military occupational specialty of being an airman caused him to be on the perimeter of the base and flight line daily. Additionally, he stated that his squadron slept in open-sided huts and that the chow halls and outside recreation areas were all located near the base perimeter. The Veteran also submitted photographs that he took of the fence line that show defoliation of ground cover, which is where the Veteran said his Squadron, including his barracks, was located. Additionally, the Veteran submitted photographs of himself near the base perimeter at U-Tapao as well as a photograph he took of Danang, Vietnam from the tarmac after completing a mission. The Board notes that the Veteran’s military personnel records note that the Veteran performed in-flight duties as a P-3 Julie Operator (navigation system) and received several commendations for outstanding performance of duty while participating in patrol plane operations in the combat zone off the coast of Vietnam from June 26, 1967 to December 7, 1967. Specifically, a January 3, 1968 commendation notes that the Veteran was a crew member of the Patrol Force Seventh Fleet. The Board finds the Veteran’s testimony regarding his time spent near the U-Tapao base perimeter credible and his exposure to herbicide agents has therefore been conceded. Additionally, the Board has considered whether there is affirmative evidence to the contrary, or evidence to establish an intercurrent injury or disease which is a recognized cause of diabetes mellitus, so as to rebut this presumption. See 38 U.S.C. § 1113; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (d). Evidence may be considered in rebuttal of a presumption if it is “of a nature usually accepted as competent to indicate the time of existence or inception of disease, and medical judgment will be exercised in making determinations relative to the effect of the intercurrent injury or disease.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (d). However, the Board finds that there is not sufficient affirmative evidence with sound medical reasoning that considers the totality of the evidence of record to rebut the presumption. Therefore, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection on a presumptive basis for diabetic mellitus is warranted. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mountford, 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.