Citation Nr: 21004681 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 19-03 830 DATE: January 27, 2021 ORDER Service connection for coronary artery disease is granted. Service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was exposed to herbicides in service. 2. The Veteran has current diagnoses of coronary artery disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for coronary artery disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1154(a), 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1154(a), 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 in the United States Air Force from March 1966 to January 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from September 2015 and October 2016 rating decisions from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Of note, the Veteran’s claim of service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is reviewed on the merits. In this regard, the Veteran’s October 2014 leukemia claim was continuously prosecuted from its initial denial in September 2015 because the Veteran submitted new and material evidence in June 2016. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). In January 2021, the Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F. 3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, the certain diseases, to include coronary artery disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, shall be service connected if they manifest to a compensable degree. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307; 3.309. In written statements and testimony before the Board, the Veteran asserted that he was exposed to an herbicide agent while serving at U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand from April to August 1967. See Statement (January 7, 2017); testimony at January 2021 Board hearing. Service treatment and personnel records confirm that the Veteran served in at U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base. See Service treatment record (April 19, 1967); Service personnel record (May 1, 1967). Based on the evidence in the record, including the Veteran’s testimony, the Board finds that there is credible evidence of in-service exposure to Agent Orange while the Veteran was serving in Thailand. VA treatment records (VATR), show that the Veteran has current diagnoses of coronary artery disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. In light of the above, the inquiry shifts to whether the Veteran’s coronary artery disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia have manifest to a compensable degree. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(ii). Here, recent VA treatment records show that the Veteran’s chronic lymphocytic leukemia necessitated chemotherapy and that his coronary artery disease necessitated surgical intervention, thereby warranting at least compensable ratings under the applicable diagnostic criteria. See VATR (September 28, 2016; November 17, 2016). Accordingly, after resolving any doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that his current coronary artery disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia are related to his military service as presumptive conditions associated with herbicide exposure during his period of service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(e). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Joshua R. Castillo, 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.