Citation Nr: 21002296 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 19-36 581 DATE: January 13, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is granted. Entitlement to service connection for chronic kidney disease is granted. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran did not appeal the October 2012 rating decision that denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II; this decision became final. 2. The evidence received since the October 2012 rating decision is not cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the Veteran’s claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. 3. Resolving all doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Veteran served on active duty in close proximity to the perimeter of Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand during the Vietnam era, and as such, service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, is warranted. 4. The Veteran’s chronic kidney disease is proximately due to his diabetes mellitus, type II. 5. Resolving all doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Veteran served on active duty in close proximity to the perimeter of Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand during the Vietnam era, and as such, service connection for coronary artery disease is warranted. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The October 2012 rating decision denying the Veteran’s claims of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. 2. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 4. The criteria for service connection for chronic kidney disease as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. 5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 1965 to January 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a November 2018 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared for a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2020. A transcript of the proceeding is of record. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the appellant or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-30 (2000). Where there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). New and Material Evidence In general, a RO’s determination that is not appealed within one year becomes a final decision, which may only be reopened with a showing of new and material evidence. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105. New evidence is evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. Material evidence is evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last final denial of the claim sought to be reopened and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The Board must review all evidence submitted by or on behalf of a claimant since the last final denial on any basis to determine whether a claim must be reopened. Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273 (1996). For purposes of determining whether new evidence is material, the credibility of the new evidence is presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510 (1992). New and material evidence is not required as to each previously unproven element of a claim. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). For the purpose of determining whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen a claim, the evidence for consideration is that which has been presented or secured since the last time the claim was finally disallowed on any basis. Evans, 9 Vet. App. at 285. 1. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II The Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, was denied in an October 2012 rating decision on the basis that the evidence of record failed to show the condition was related to service. The Veteran was informed of the decision in writing and did not appeal the decision or submit pertinent evidence during the appeal period. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b), (c). Accordingly, the October 2012 rating decision is final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302, 20.1103. The Board finds that there is sufficient evidentiary basis to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. New evidence received since the last final denial includes the Veteran’s testimony at the November 2020 Board hearing that he worked in close proximity to the perimeter of the Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base every day he was stationed there. The Board finds that the submitted evidence constitutes new and material evidence which directly relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the Veteran’s claims. Accordingly, as new and material evidence has been received, the Board finds that the claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, is reopened. Service Connection 2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II Service connection may be granted for 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). For veterans presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents, certain enumerated diseases, to include diabetes, shall be service connected even though there is no record of such disease during service, so long as the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 1116 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) are met, and the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1113 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The Veteran contends he was exposed to herbicides while stationed at Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base. The AOJ found the Veteran served at the Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base. VA policy gives special consideration of herbicide exposure on a factual basis to veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases during the Vietnam era, to include the Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base. If a Veteran served on one of these air bases as a security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by MOS, performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, then herbicide exposure should be acknowledged on a facts-found or direct basis. VA treatment records show a history of diabetes mellitus diagnosed in the 1980’s. See, e.g., November 2012 Private Treatment Records. After considering the evidence of record, to include his Board testimony, the Board finds that the Veteran served at the perimeter of a Royal Thai Air Force Base Accordingly, as diabetes is among the disabilities presumed to be etiologically related with herbicide agents, service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). 3. Entitlement to service connection for chronic kidney disease The Veteran contends that his chronic kidney disease is secondary to his now service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II. Service connection may be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. The Veteran is diagnosed with stage three chronic kidney disease. See, e.g., August 2019 Private Treatment Records. Private treatment records indicate his kidney disease is due to his diabetes, as he is diagnosed with diabetic kidney disease. See November 2012 and June 2019 Private Treatment Records. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for chronic kidney disease is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 3. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease The Veteran contends his coronary artery disease is due to his exposure to herbicide agents while stationed at Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base during the Vietnam era. April 2018 VA treatment records reflect a diagnosis of coronary artery disease with multiple myocardial infarctions. As above, the Board finds that the Veteran’s service qualifies for presumed exposure to herbicide agents on a facts-found basis. Accordingly, as coronary artery disease is among the disabilities presumed to be etiologically related with herbicide agents, service connection for coronary artery disease is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K.L. Blevins, 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.