Citation Nr: 21066563 Decision Date: 11/01/21 Archive Date: 11/01/21 DOCKET NO. 17-57 755 DATE: November 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease as a result of herbicide exposure is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides while in service. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that Parkinson's disease began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for Parkinson's disease are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1968 to August 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a July 2017 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a March 2021 Board hearing. Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease as a result of herbicide exposure The Veteran contends that she has Parkinson's disease as a result of exposure to herbicides while in service. Specifically, the Veteran claims that she was exposed to herbicides when she was stationed at Clark's Air Force Base (AFB) in the Philippines. She claims that as an inventory specialist, her "office was adjacent to the flight line." She contends that the planes, including C-123s, flying in from Vietnam were contaminated with herbicides and she was exposed to such due to the proximity of the flight line to her office. She also contends that she had indirect exposure to herbicides as a result of cargo from the airplanes being in the same room as where she did paperwork and from the flight crew coming into her office. See January 2017 correspondence. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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, the so-called "nexus" requirement. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The governing law provides that a "veteran who, during active military, naval, or air 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 during such service to an herbicide agent... unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service." 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f). Moreover, a "veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in between April 1, 1968, and August 31, 1971, in a unit that, as determined by the Department of Defense, operated in or near the Korean DMZ in an area in which herbicides are known to have been applied during that period, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent... unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service." 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iv). An individual who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which the individual concerned regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam era shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent. For purposes of this paragraph, "regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft" means that the individual was assigned to an Air Force or Air Force Reserve squadron when the squadron was permanently assigned one of the affected aircraft and the individual had an Air Force Specialty Code indicating duties as a flight, ground maintenance, or medical crew member on such aircraft. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(v). Certain specified diseases will be presumed service-connected due to herbicide exposure during service, if they manifest to a compensable degree at any time after service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). The Board notes that the Veteran served in the Philippines from December 1968 to June 1970. In July 2017, the VA issued a formal finding that the VA lacks the information the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) requires to verify herbicide exposure in Clark AFB, Philippines. See July 2017 VA memorandum. The Board notes that the Veteran's military personnel records do not establish that the Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam or any other location where herbicide exposure is presumed by the VA, and there is no other evidence of record indicating that the Veteran had direct exposure to tactical herbicides while on active duty. Regarding the Veteran's contention that she was exposed to herbicides via C-123 aircrafts, she has not provided any further information asserting that she had regular and repeated contact with C-123 aircraft. Furthermore, the regulation would not apply because 405th Fighter Wing is the only unit assigned to Clark Air Force Base from 1969 to 1970 that qualifies for the presumption. See http//www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/docs/AO_C123_AFSpecialityCodesUnits.pdf. Service personnel records do not indicate that the Veteran was attached to the unit known to have tactical herbicide exposure from affected C-123 planes. The Board has carefully considered the Veteran theory that she had indirect exposure to herbicides from proximity to and contact with pilots, aircraft, and cargo while stationed at Clark's AFB. However, the Veteran has not presented any affirmative evidence of her exposure. She testified that there was dust blowing from the planes. However, the Board does not find that the Veteran established the competency to distinguish herbicide agents from other dust or chemicals she may have witnessed or handled during service. Accordingly, the Veteran was not competent to say he was exposed to herbicides based on the dust she encountered because she has not been shown to have any specialized training that would allow her to identify a chemical such as herbicides by sight. See Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010) (a layperson's assertions indicating exposure to gases or chemicals during service were not sufficient evidence alone to establish that such an event occurred during service). Additionally, there is no other evidence of record indicating that the Veteran had direct exposure to tactical herbicides while on active duty. In sum, in-service exposure to herbicides cannot be established based on a presumption or on a "facts found" basis. As such, the Board finds that the evidence of record does not support the Veteran's claim that she was exposed to herbicides while in service. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of Parkinson's disease, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran's diagnosis of Parkinson's disease began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any signs or symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Private treatment records from October 2010 indicate that the Veteran's Parkinson's disease began in 1999, more than two decades after her separation from service. While the Veteran believes her Parkinson's disease is related to herbicide exposure in service, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that in-service herbicide exposure occurred. Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for Parkinson's disease has not been established and the claim must be denied. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Morrad, 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.