Citation Nr: 21073387 Decision Date: 12/08/21 Archive Date: 12/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-09 724 DATE: December 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1963 to July 1967. In July 2020, the Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for ischemic heart disease and COPD. The Veteran then appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In August 2021, the Court vacated the Board's July 2020 decision, and remanded the claims pursuant to an August 2021 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) submitted by the Veteran and VA. The Veteran separately appealed a denial of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus. Although he requested a Board hearing on the issue on his substantive appeal, the hearing request was specifically withdrawn in an October 25, 2021 letter. The Board will accordingly proceed with adjudication. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease, COPD, and diabetes mellitus which he contends are due to his exposure to herbicide agents while loading and offloading C-123 aircraft while stationed at Travis Air Force Base and/or at the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan. See August 2015 VA Form 21-0958, Notice of Disagreement. The Veteran's military occupational specialty was as an air freight specialist, and he was assigned to the 1501 Aerial Port Squadron at Travis Air Force Base from November 1963 to June 1965. From June 1965 to December 1966, the Veteran was an air freight specialist assigned to the 603 Military Airlift Support Squadron at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan. The Veteran's claims for service connection have been denied based on a finding that exposure to herbicide agents could not be confirmed. Effective June 19, 2015, VA expanded its regulation governing individuals presumed to have been exposed to certain herbicides by including Veterans who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which they had regular and repeated contact with C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam era. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(v). The phrase "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 of such aircraft. Given the Veteran's assertion that he was exposed to herbicide agents through aircraft during his service in the Air Force, the Board finds remand is necessary to determine whether a C-123 aircraft was permanently assigned to the 1501 Aerial Port Squadron at Travis Air Force Base at any point from November 1963 to June 1965; or whether a C-123 aircraft was permanently assigned to the 603 Military Airlift Support Squadron at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan from June 1965 to December 1966. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to verify: (a) whether the 1501 Aerial Port Squadron at Travis Air Force Base was permanently assigned a C-123 aircraft at any time November 1963 to June 1965; or (b) whether the 603 Military Airlift Support Squadron at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan was permanently assigned a C-123 aircraft at any time from June 1965 to December 1966. All attempts at verification should be documented and associated with the claims file. 2. If it is verified that either squadron was assigned a C-123 aircraft during the identified time periods, research whether the Veteran would have been part of the flight crew for that aircraft, given his specialty as an air freight or cargo specialist. 3. Readjudicate the issues on appeal. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board James R. Springer, 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.