Citation Nr: 21072584 Decision Date: 12/03/21 Archive Date: 12/03/21 DOCKET NO. 18-32 862 DATE: December 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Based on his credible assertions and supporting material, and resolving all doubt in his favor, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents while serving along the perimeter of the Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base. 2. The Veteran's ischemic heart disease is presumed related to his in-service exposure to herbicide agents. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for ischemic heart disease, claimed as secondary to herbicide exposure, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1968 to March 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The undersigned Veterans Law Judge presided over a Board hearing in November 2021. A transcript of that hearing will be associated with the claims file, but as the Board is granting in full the benefits sought by the Veteran, there is no prejudice in rendering this decision before the transcript has been finalized. Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease The Veteran contends that his ischemic heart disease should be presumptively connected to his period of active service, and specifically to in-service exposure to herbicide agents. The Veteran's primary assertion is that he was exposed to herbicide agents while serving at the Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB). Under the relevant laws and regulations, 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. Generally, 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). Service connection may also be granted on a presumptive basis for specific diseases associated with exposure to herbicide agents, to include ischemic heart disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). These disabilities will be considered to have been incurred in or aggravated by service despite any lack of evidence of such disease during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a). This presumption applies to veterans who: (1) served in the Republic of Vietnam between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975; (2) served in or near the Korean Demilitarized Zone between April 1, 1968 and August 31, 1971; or (3) regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served aboard aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam War Era. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). Additionally, VA has established a procedure for verifying exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand during the Vietnam Era. VA has determined that Veterans who served on RTAFBs at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang, near the air base perimeter anytime during the Vietnam Era, may have been exposed to herbicide agents. Particularly, to benefit from the presumption of herbicide agent exposure at one of the above listed air bases, a Veteran must have served 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 military occupational specialty, performance evaluation, or other credible evidence. In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. The Veteran's post-service treatment records reflect that he is diagnosed with ischemic heart disease. Accordingly, the question before the Board is whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his period of active service. The Veteran's service treatment and military personnel records show that he served at the Ubon RTAFB from September 1969 to August 1970. His records further show that his military occupational specialty was a munitions specialist and that he was responsible for loading pyrotechnics on aircraft. The Veteran testified at his November 2021 hearing that his job duties frequently put him on the flight line and near the perimeter of the base. The Veteran also noted that the flare shop where he worked was located near the bomb dump at the north end of the base close to the perimeter because his work was dangerous. He recalled that they cleared the land between the inner and outer perimeters, and he remembered the vegetation dying within 2 weeks of being sprayed. The Veteran submitted a number of lay statements during the course of the appeal noting use of herbicides at the Ubon RTAFB and the Veteran's work on the flight line. The Veteran additionally submitted a map of the Airbase showing the flight line and the flare shop near the perimeter of the base. The Board finds the Veteran to be both competent and credible in detailing his experiences at Ubon RTAFB in Thailand, and how he may have been exposed to herbicide agents, to include Agent Orange. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994). The Board notes that the RO attempted to verify the Veteran's herbicide exposure. In March 2018, the RO filed a memorandum indicating that they had insufficient evidence of exposure to herbicides to request corroboration from the National Archives & Records Administration or the Joint Services Records Research Center. However, the Board is persuaded by the Veteran's competent and credible statements describing his in-service experiences. The evidence of record clearly establishes that the Veteran had service at one of the designated Thailand military bases during the Vietnam Era, a period during which VA has acknowledged that herbicides were used near those air base perimeters in Thailand. Furthermore, he provided competent evidence that establishes service near the base perimeter, and the Board finds such statements to be consistent with the circumstances of his service. The Board notes that there is no basis in the record to question the Veteran's credibility regarding his statements, especially considering that he has been consistent throughout the entirety of the appeal. His statements are additionally supported by the buddy statements confirming that he regularly worked and traveled near the perimeter of the Ubon RTAFB. (Continued on next page) Based on the Veteran's credible assertions and resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Board finds that the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents during his active service. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Further, as he is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange, the presumption of service connection for ischemic heart disease attaches. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). Therefore, service connection for ischemic heart disease is warranted. CAROLINE B. FLEMING Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Connor, 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.