Citation Nr: 21067189 Decision Date: 11/03/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 18-38 939 DATE: November 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, claimed as due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. While stationed in Thailand at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB), the Veteran's duties of his military occupational specialty (MOS) placed him in close proximity to the base's perimeter. 2. Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board concludes that he was exposed to an herbicide agent while at stationed at Korat RTAFB. 3. The Veteran's prostate cancer is presumed to be related to his in-service exposure to an herbicide agent. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer due to herbicide exposure have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1966 to January 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from April 2015 and May 2015 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Veteran later appeared before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge for a virtual Board hearing in June 2021. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the Veteran's file. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, claimed as due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent while stationed at Korat RTAFB. In this case, the Veteran seeks service connection for prostate cancer claimed as due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent while stationed at Korat RTAFB in Thailand. In order to establish service connection for a claimed disability, the following three elements must be satisfied: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship (nexus) between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 246 (1999). Service connection may also be granted for certain specified diseases on a presumptive basis if a veteran was exposed to Agent Orange during active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(b), 3.309(e). A veteran is presumed exposed to Agent Orange if he or she had active military, naval, or air service, in the Republic of Vietnam from January 9, 1962 through May 7, 1975, "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); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). The Department of Defense has also confirmed to VA that herbicides were used in Thailand during the Vietnam Era. The majority of troops in Thailand during the Vietnam Era were stationed at the Royal Thai Air Force Bases (AFB) of U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang. 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 (military occupational specialty), performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, then herbicide exposure should be acknowledged on a facts-found or direct basis. This applies only during the Vietnam Era. The list of diseases associated with exposure to these herbicide agents includes prostate cancer. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, except that chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). In evaluating the evidence in an appeal, it is the responsibility of the Board to weigh the evidence and decide where to give credit and where to withhold same and, in doing so, accept certain medical opinions over others. Schoolman v. West, 12 Vet. App. 307 (1999). In this regard, the Board has been charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to the evidence. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (2007). Competent lay evidence is any kind of evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). This may include some medical matters, such as describing symptoms or relating a contemporaneous medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When 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; 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). Analysis A condition precedent for establishing service connection is the presence of a current disability. As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran's VA medical record indicates he has a history of prostate cancer and having underwent a prostatectomy in September 2009. Given the history and his treatment for prostate cancer, the Board finds the first element for establishing service connection has been met. Prostate cancer is one of the diseases presumed to be due to in-service exposure to herbicides, the Veteran need only establish that he either directly was exposed to herbicides or is presumed to have been exposed to herbicides to be entitled to service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii), 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). In that regard, the Veteran's MOS was that of a telephone equipment installer and repairman assigned to the 388th "CMBT SPT GP" 1998 Communications Squadron at Korat RTAFB. In total, he spent 16 months in Thailand. As part of his evidence, he submitted a map of the base with extensive detail as to the layout of the base. In a lay statement he outlined the responsibilities of his MOS. He provided that he was responsible for installing and maintaining telephone systems, cable systems, public address systems, security, and fire systems. His work area included Korat RTAFB and Camp Friendship which included duties in the office area, "flight line" hangers, maintenance shops, meal halls, clubs, control towers, radar approach sites, warehouse, storehouses, fuel storage sites, and the perimeter. Specifically, he noted that he was in the "drift zone" and was exposed to all the dirt and particles that were "kicked up" due to activity in his area. Furthermore, during his hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, he reiterated his duties and responsibilities for his MOS, and that he was crew chief for outside plant telephone installers and trouble crews. He further indicated that he drove a pickup truck without air-conditioning and visited the perimeter and gate security systems for the base. He also visited all terminals, pre-checked them, and did a final check on all terminals on the perimeter fence lines. He conducted rehabilitation of the base public address systems, base wide, which included all gates along the perimeter fence. Specifically, when certain cables, to include along the perimeter line, needed to be replaced or worked on, the Veteran testified that he would spend three to four months on a daily basis working on them. Although he did not serve on guard duty, he testified that he was digging in the dirt along the perimeter in the same place the guards were stationed. In sum, a multitude of his duties involved assignments around the perimeter of the base. Based on the available evidence of record, the Board finds that the most probative evidence supports a finding that the Veteran was stationed at one of the listed Thai bases where herbicides were known to be used and that his duties placed him in close proximity to the perimeter. Therefore, herbicide exposure is presumed and conceded, and as the Veteran's prostate cancer is on the list of diseases associated with exposure to herbicide agents, service connection for this disability is warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. DeBoer, 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.