Citation Nr: 21061952 Decision Date: 10/05/21 Archive Date: 10/05/21 DOCKET NO. 18-34 094A DATE: October 5, 2021 ORDER Service connection for diabetes mellitus type II, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is granted. Service connection for a heart condition, to include as due to herbicide exposure is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service during the Vietnam era, and he has been diagnosed to have Diabetes Mellitus type II. 2. The Veteran's heart condition, to include atrial fibrillation and hypertension, was not present in service or for many years thereafter, and is not otherwise etiologically related to service, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. 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. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a heart condition are not 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 1972 to February 1977. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2021, the Veteran appeared and testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Service Connection Service connection for diabetes mellitus type II, to include as due to herbicide exposure, Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. In order to establish service connection, the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). VA informed the Veteran that for purposes of determining exposure to herbicide agents on a facts found basis, special consideration is given to veterans whose duties placed them near the perimeters of specified RTAFBs, including Takhli RTAFB, during the Vietnam era (defined as January 9, 1962, through May 7, 1975). Such persons could be considered to have been exposed to herbicide agents during the Vietnam era, which would permit a presumption of service connection for certain diseases set out in 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Diabetes mellitus type II is included among the disease for which service connection may be presumed for those exposed to herbicide agents as the statute and regulations set out, during the Vietnam era. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The Veteran claims that his Diabetes Mellitus type II is related to his exposure to herbicide agents while serving in Thailand. The Veteran's service personnel records show that he was an aircraft hydraulic system repairman and served at Takhli RTAFB from July to October 1973 and at Udorn RTAFB from May to November 1975. At his June 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran credibly testified about the road system at Takhli RTAFB, and how his in-service duties placed him on the flight line and proximate to the perimeter of Takhli RTAFB. The Veteran's personnel records do not explicitly state that he served at the perimeter of either Takhli or Udorn RTAFB. They also do not contradict the Veteran's testimony. Indeed, the Board finds no evidence contrary to the Veteran's assertions that his duties placed him at the perimeter of these bases. Accordingly, in light of the Veteran's consistent reports that he worked near the perimeter of Takhli RTAFB during the Vietnam era, the weight of the probative evidence of record is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service. As such, service connection for Diabetes Mellitus type II is therefore warranted. Service connection for a heart condition, to include as due to herbicide exposure The Veteran contends that his heart condition is due to service. 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). At the outset, the Board concedes that the Veteran has a heart condition, diagnosed as atrial fibrillation, and as noted above, the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service. The heart conditions for which service connection will be presumed are limited to 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). 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Notably, atrial fibrillation is not listed. As the Veteran does not have a heart condition that can be service connected as due to herbicide exposure, the Board will only evaluate the condition on a direct basis. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, and evidence shows that herbicide exposure occurred, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran's diagnosis of atrial fibrillation began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. VA treatment records show the Veteran was not diagnosed with atrial fibrillation until 2017, over forty years after his separation from service. Further, the available treatment records show that as recently as 2016, the Veteran denied any cardiac symptoms. At his hearing, the Veteran stated that the heart condition he was seeking service connection for was hypertension. Like atrial fibrillation, hypertension is not a disability that is presumed to be due to herbicide exposure. Further, the Veteran's service treatment records show normal blood pressure readings and post service treatment records do not show a diagnosis of hypertension until 2016, nearly forty years after separation from service. Thus, the evidence does not show that the Veteran's hypertension began in service or for many years thereafter. The Veteran believes his heart condition is related to an in-service injury or disease. The Veteran in this case is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, as it requires interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the medical records. M. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Uller, 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.