Citation Nr: 21002367 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 17-20 768 DATE: January 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is granted. Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's Disease is granted. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his period of service in Thailand. 2. The Veteran’s type II diabetes mellitus is presumed to be related to in-service exposure to herbicide agents. 3. The Veteran’s Parkinson’s Disease is presumed to be related to in-service exposure to herbicide agents. 4. The Veteran’s currently diagnosed hypertension has been present since service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for type II diabetes mellitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1116, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for Parkinson’s Disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1116, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 3. The criteria for service connection for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1954 to September 1958 and from April 1963 to October 1979. His service included service at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) beginning in March 1969. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a June 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in April 2019. A transcript is associated with the Veteran’s claims file. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In order to establish entitlement to service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal connection between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). To prevail on the issue of entitlement to secondary service connection, there must be: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) nexus evidence establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995). Lay evidence presented by a Veteran concerning continuity of symptoms after service may not be deemed to lack credibility solely because of a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (2006). The Board has the authority to discount the weight and probity of evidence in light of its own inherent characteristics and its relationship to other evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Board must assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. Masors v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 181 (1992); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614 (1992); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (1991); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Equal weight is not accorded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; every item of evidence does not have the same probative value. The Board must determine whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the appellant prevailing in either case, or whether the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case, service connection must be denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). 1. Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is granted. 2. Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's Disease is granted. The Veteran has currently diagnosed type II diabetes mellitus and Parkinson’s Disease. See March 2020 VA examination report. The Board finds that the evidence is in equipoise as to whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicides while stationed at Korat RTAFB. Veterans who, during active service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence of non-exposure. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. Service incurrence for certain diseases, to include Parkinson’s disease and diabetes, will be presumed on the basis of an association with certain herbicide agents (e.g., Agent Orange). 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). Such a presumption, however, requires evidence of actual or presumed exposure to herbicides. Id. However, the evidence of record shows that the Veteran did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam during his active duty service. In the absence of verified service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam Era, there is no presumed exposure to herbicidal agents. Thus, there is no possibility of presumptive service connection for herbicide exposure due to Vietnam service under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) in this case. Instead, with regard to the Veteran’s confirmed service in Thailand, the Board notes that there are no statutory or regulatory presumptions regarding herbicide exposure in Thailand. However, VA may presume, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, that a veteran who served in Thailand during the Vietnam War Era was exposed to herbicide agents if: (1) the veteran was in the Air Force, (2) the veteran served at the RTAFB of U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, or Don Muang, and (3) the veteran served as a security policeman, security patrol dog handler, or member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near a base perimeter, as shown by the veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS, daily work duties, performance evaluations, or other credible evidence. In this regard, the Veteran served in the Air Force at Korat RTAFB and his MOS included intelligence operations maintenance technician. See Form DD-214. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran did not serve in a position which VA has conceded as being exposed to herbicides on that military base. However, the Board finds that the Veteran’s MOS likely placed him on the flight line on a nearly daily basis, which would have required him to be on or in close proximity to the base perimeter. At his April 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his duties included changing packets for pilots at the flight line at Korat RTAFB and that he traveled along and inside the perimeter during his time stationed there. See April 2019 Board hearing transcript at 2-3. The Board highlights that his reports regarding his service at Korat RTAFB have been consistent. The Board finds that based on the Veteran’s competent and credible statements regarding having served near the base perimeter, along with the nature of his military duties, all reasonable doubt should be resolved in his favor. Thus, it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran meets the criteria for conceding exposure to herbicides during his active military service in Thailand. Accordingly, the Veteran’s type II diabetes mellitus and Parkinson’s Disease are presumed to be related to in-service exposure to herbicide agents and service connection for type II diabetes mellitus and Parkinson’s Disease are granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107, 1116(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.309(e). 3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is granted. The Veteran has a currently diagnosed hypertension disability. See March 2020 VA examination report. A review of the record reveals that the Veteran has had elevated blood pressure readings during and since service. See Service Treatment Records. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in March 2020 to determine the nature of his hypertension. Although the examiner provided a negative nexus opinion, the examiner also diagnosed the Veteran with hypertension since 1970, which is includes the Veteran’s period of service. In light of this inconsistency, the Board relies on the several diagnoses for hypertension in addition to multiple recorded elevated blood pressure readings of record. Moreover, given the Veteran’s April 2019 Board hearing testimony as to his current diagnosis and treatment for hypertension, the Board finds that it is at least as likely as not that his hypertension began during his service and has continued since service. Accordingly, affording the Veteran the benefit of any reasonable doubt, service connection for hypertension is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). C. TRUEBA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Schick, 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.