Citation Nr: 21069968 Decision Date: 11/22/21 Archive Date: 11/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-39 844 DATE: November 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1962 to October 1966. He died in April 2015, and the appellant is his surviving spouse. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision. In November 2019, the Board remanded this matter for further development [to obtain private treatment records and consider whether the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) brought him in contact with the perimeter of Don Muang Royal Thai Air Force base (RTAFB), such that he was exposed to tactical herbicide agents.] Entitlement to service connection for cause of death is remanded. The appellant asserts that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents along the Don Muang RTAFB perimeter during his deployment in Thailand from October 1965 to October 1966, and therefore under 38 U.S.C. § 1116 was entitled to a presumption of service connection for ischemic heart disease that she contends played a role in the Veteran's death (which is supported by a private medical opinion detailing how the Veteran's surgery to address coronary heart disease resulted in a deadly infection.) Certain chronic diseases (listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e)) to include ischemic heart disease, may be presumed to be service connected as due to exposure to herbicide agents if manifested in a veteran who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam Era. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(e). The presumptive provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1116 have been extended to encompass veterans shown to have been otherwise exposed to tactical herbicide agents in service, including those whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases (to include Don Muang). 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, here there is a critical question whether the Veteran served at or near the base perimeter when herbicide agents may have been used; there has not been any development to determine whether his firefighting duties (to include his duties responding to aircraft crash fires, which reasonably would have occurred near the base perimeter, on it, or beyond) placed him at or near the base perimeter, as has been alleged. The information in the claims file is insufficient make the determination. The Veteran's service personnel records note he worked as a crew chief on structural and aircraft crash fire fighting vehicles, supervised crew member's performance during fire service operations, and trained subordinate crew members, which suggests that he may have served near the Don Muang RTAFB perimeter (as argued.) If that is confirmed, it may reasonably be conceded that he was exposed to herbicide agents while serving in Thailand. A remand for an assessment of the probability whether the Veteran's duties placed him at or near the Don Muang RTAFB base perimeter (after all further development needed to make such assessment) is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Arrange for all development necessary, and make a factual determination whether the Veteran's duty locations at Don Muang RTAFB would have placed him at, or in close proximity to, the base perimeter. [A chart (or aerial photo) of the base showing the flight line, barracks, dining facility, and runways and perimeter would be helpful, as would any available information regarding whether actually were any aircraft fires/crash landings at the base while the Veteran was there would be helpful.] The findings made should reflect consideration of each allegation by the appellant regarding the nature by which the Veteran may have been exposed to herbicide agents. The Memorandum for the record memorializing the findings regarding whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while serving at Don Muang should identify the period during which VA has acknowledged herbicides were used there, and should include comment on the plausibility of the appellant's contentions alleging the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents in the course of his duties at Don Muang. GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Lederman, Michael 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.