Citation Nr: 21067510 Decision Date: 11/04/21 Archive Date: 11/04/21 DOCKET NO. 18-27 592 DATE: November 4, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus due to herbicide agent exposure is granted. Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease due to herbicide agent exposure is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's duties at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base during the Vietnam era took him on or near the base perimeter and herbicide agent exposure is accepted on a facts-found basis. 2. The Veteran has current diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease that are presumed to be related to herbicide agent exposure sustained during active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus due to herbicide agent exposure are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for ischemic heart disease due to herbicide agent exposure are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from May 1971 to May 1974, with service in Thailand from September 1972 to September 1973. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran was provided a Board hearing before the undersigned Veteran's Law Judge in February 2021. The Veteran's representative requested an additional 90 day period of time to submit evidence and argument following the hearing; this requested time period has now expired. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the Veteran's file and has been considered in rendering this decision. 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus due to herbicide agent exposure is granted. 2. Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease due to herbicide agent exposure is granted. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease. In this case, the Veteran does not assert that he had service in the Republic of Vietnam but rather has asserted that he served at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. Specifically, the Veteran has asserted that his diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease are due to herbicide agent exposure during his service in Thailand. During his February 2021 hearing, the Veteran testified that he worked on the flight line performing duties such as refueling and defueling aircraft, preflight and post-flight inspections, general maintenance on the aircraft, serving the oil and inspecting the engines for oil leaks, maintaining the hydraulic systems and using a tug motor to tow aircraft to and from the fuel cell while in Thailand. He also testified that the fuel cell was located between the taxi and the runway and that he was assigned to drive the Red Ball Step Van truck to pick up and deliver the aircraft specialists to the aircrafts throughout the entire Korat base and to Camp Friendship which was through the perimeter. In addition, he testified that he traveled across the perimeter of Korat to Camp Friendship on at least 30 occasions and that he left the Korat base at least 40 times to travel to the local town for rest and relaxation. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires: (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, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). To establish service connection for a disability resulting from exposure to a herbicide agent (including Agent Orange), a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam between January 1962 and May 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to a herbicide agent absent affirmative evidence to the contrary demonstrating that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, then certain diseases shall be service-connected even though there is no record of such disease during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). For the purposes of this section, the term "herbicide agent" means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e), 3.313. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence as to any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA will 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). VA concedes herbicide agent exposure for United States Air Force Veterans who served in Thailand during the Vietnam era at certain Royal Thai Air Force Bases to include Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, if they served as security policemen, security patrol dog handlers, members of the security police squadron, or otherwise near the air base perimeter as shown by evidence of daily work duties, performance evaluation reports, or other credible evidence. Per his military personnel record, the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) was an aircraft mechanic. As the Veteran did not work with Air Force security, the Board must determine, based on evidence of daily work duties, performance evaluation reports, or other credible evidence whether the Veteran's regular duties placed him on or near the perimeter of the base. As noted above, the Veteran has consistently asserted that his duties placed him at or near the base perimeter at Korat Royal Thai Air Base in Thailand. In considering the Veteran's MOS of aircraft mechanic, his active service at the Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand during the Vietnam War era, and his statements of performing his duties on aircraft for maintenance at and near the perimeter of the base, the Board finds that evidence is, at the very least, in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran served at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base near the perimeter of the base. In addition, he testified that he left the Korat Royal Thai Air Force base at least 30 times to travel to nearby Camp Friendship and at least 40 times to travel to the nearby time for rest and relaxation. Therefore, the Board will resolve all doubt in favor of the Veteran in finding that he worked near the Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base perimeter. Accordingly, his exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand is conceded on a fact found basis. A review of the record shows that the Veteran has diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease. Diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart are diseases that are enumerated for purposes of presumptive service connection due to exposure to herbicide agents. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). In sum, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents while serving in Thailand, and he has current diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease. Therefore, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is for the claims and entitlement to service connection is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, supra. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Kashif I. Ali, 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.