Citation Nr: 21073725 Decision Date: 12/10/21 Archive Date: 12/10/21 DOCKET NO. 20-23 966 DATE: December 10, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder is denied. Entitlement to service connection for lower right extremity neuropathy is denied. Entitlement to service connection for lower left extremity neuropathy is denied. Entitlement to service connection for upper right extremity neuropathy is denied. Entitlement to service connection for upper left extremity neuropathy is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a vestibular disorder is denied. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is denied. Entitlement to service connection for constipation is denied. Entitlement to service connection for dry mouth is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a scar status post heart surgery is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was not exposed to herbicide agents or asbestos in service. 2. The Veteran does not have a current diabetes mellitus disability. 3. The Veteran's heart disorders did not begin in service and are not otherwise related to service. 4. The Veteran's respiratory disorders did not begin in service and are not otherwise related to service. 5. The Veteran's neuropathy symptoms began many years after service and are otherwise unrelated to service. 6. Service connection for diabetes, a heart disorder, and a lung disorder have been denied; therefore, secondary service connection cannot be granted for a vestibular disorder, erectile dysfunction, constipation, dry mouth, and a scar. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for a heart disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 3. The criteria for service connection for a respiratory disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 4. The criteria for service connection for lower right extremity neuropathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 5. The criteria for service connection for lower left extremity neuropathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 6. The criteria for service connection for upper right extremity neuropathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 7. The criteria for service connection for upper left extremity neuropathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 8. The criteria for service connection for a vestibular disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. 9. The criteria for service connection for erectile dysfunction have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. 10. The criteria for service connection for constipation have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. 11. The criteria for service connection for dry mouth have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. 12. The criteria for service connection for a scar status post heart surgery have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from April 1966 to April 1970. The matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2018 rating decision. In May 2020, before the matter was certified to the Board, the Veteran requested time to develop his claims. When his case was docketed at the Board in July 2020, he was informed he had 90 days to submit additional evidence; he did not do so, nor did he ever request an extension of time. As it has been more than 18 months since this request, the Board finds that the Veteran has had sufficient time to submit additional evidence concerning his claims and deciding them at this time is not prejudicial. 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied. The Veteran seeks service connection for diabetes mellitus. On his March 2018 claim form, he wrote that he was diagnosed one to two years before his filing. The Board finds, however, that the competent evidence does not show a current diabetes mellitus disorder. The Veteran submitted private medical records with his claim in March 2018. Laboratory testing from 2016 showed high glucose levels and hemoglobin levels that indicate increased risk for diabetes. His treatment records from May 2015 to February 2018 show that he takes Metformin because he is prediabetes but do not show that he has been diagnosed with diabetes mellitus. Elevated glucose levels are a laboratory finding only and are not considered a disability by VA. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, he is not competent to diagnose himself with diabetes mellitus, a complex medical disorder which requires diagnostic testing for diagnosis. He further has not demonstrated that a medical professional has diagnosed him with diabetes mellitus. In addition to the lack of a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, the Veteran has not asserted, and the evidence does not show, that his prediabetes status functionally impairs his earning capacity. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Thus, the competent evidence does not show a current disability. Service connection is only warranted if a claimant has a current disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992). "In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim." See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Because there is no current disability for which service connection can be granted, the claim is denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder is denied. The Veteran seeks service connection for a heart disorder, to include based on exposure to herbicide agents while stationed at the Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base (Korat) in Thailand during the Vietnam Era. He has been diagnosed with coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and bradycardia, and has been treated with a pacemaker. If a Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during active military, naval, or air service, certain conditions, to include ischemic heart disease, shall be service connected if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6) are met. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). There is no presumption of herbicide exposure for veterans who served in Thailand. However, VA has determined that there was significant use of herbicides on the fenced in perimeters of military bases in Thailand intended to eliminate vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes. Therefore, when herbicide related claims from veterans with Thailand service are received, VA is instructed to evaluate the service treatment and service personnel records to determine whether a veteran's service activities involved duty on or near the perimeter of the military base where that veteran was stationed. Most troops in Thailand during the Vietnam era were stationed at the Royal Thai Air Force Bases of U-Tapao, Upon, 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 agent exposure should be acknowledged on a facts-found or direct basis. The Board finds that the probative evidence does not show the Veteran served near a base perimeter while stationed in Korat or was otherwise exposed to herbicide agents during service. The Veteran's personnel records show that his MOS was CCTS (TAC) or combat crew training squadron (tactical air command) and that he served in Korat from April 1968 to April 1969. Performance evaluations from that period detail his duties in service, which included maintaining electronic transistorized instruments and instrument systems and repairing, troubleshooting, overhauling, and modifying systems. The reporting official remarks contain more detail regarding his duties which did not include serving near the base perimeter. Thus, his personnel records do not show that his duties would have exposed him to herbicide agents in service. The RO contacted the Veteran several times for more information on his alleged exposure to herbicide agents, but he did not respond. In November 2018, the RO issued a formal finding that there was insufficient information to conduct a JSRRC search to verify herbicide agent exposure in Thailand. In November 2021, the Veteran's representative submitted an informal hearing presentation alleging the Veteran's duties "would have had him crossing the 'acknowledged' perimeter of the airfield numerous times during any given day" to "access the hangars and flight line where he worked on the various aircraft." The representative also alleged that "RTAFB Korat is one of the bases in Thailand that the Air Force has acknowledged extensive usage of defoliants over the entire base." The representative did not explain why the hangars and flight lines for the base in Korat were located outside the base such that the Veteran was required to leave the perimeter, and the Veteran's performance evaluations indicate his work location was on base. Indeed, if hangars or flight lines were commonly located outside the perimeter, then occupations that required work on hangars and flight lines would have similarly been specified on the list of occupations that spent time near the perimeter, like security policemen. Also, VA has acknowledged significant use of herbicides on the perimeters of military bases in Thailand, not "over the entire base." Thus, the Board does not find these arguments persuasive evidence of herbicide exposure. The Board also considered that the Veteran's statement in his claim form that he was "constantly exposed to Agent Orange" and a private treatment record that states he was exposed to Agent Orange but does not find these statements probative evidence of exposure. It is evident from the treatment record that it is based on the Veteran's report, and the Board finds that his statements are not persuasive evidence of exposure. He has not provided VA with any details to support his allegation and the Board found the November 2021 argument unpersuasive. His personnel records also weigh against his statement. Simply stating service on a base in Thailand is not enough to factually show exposure, as there is no presumption based on such service, nor are general, broad statements such as the ones the Veteran has made in connection with his claim. Again, he has not responded to the RO's request for information nor provided any details as to the circumstances of the alleged exposure. In short, the weight of the probative evidence does not support the Veteran's contention that he was exposed to herbicide agents in service, and the Board cannot grant his claim on this basis. Further, the Board finds that service connection is not otherwise warranted for a heart disorder. Importantly, the Veteran has not alleged these conditions began in service or that he has experienced symptoms since service. His service treatment records are negative for heart complaints, he denied relevant symptoms on his separation report of medical history, and his separation examination was normal. Notably, his separation examination included a comment that his father had heart trouble, but none was present in the Veteran. Finally, his private medical records show that he was first diagnosed with a heart disorder in 2011, more than 40 years after separation from service. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence is against service connection for a heart disorder and the claim is denied. The Board notes that the Veteran was not afforded a medical examination for this condition but finds that the duty to provide an examination was not triggered. Specifically, the evidence does not establish an in-service event, injury, or disease and there is sufficient evidence to decide the case. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006). Thus, a remand is not warranted to obtain an examination. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder is denied. The Veteran seeks service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include due to asbestos exposure in service. The Board finds that service connection is not warranted. Initially, the Board finds that there is no competent evidence of asbestos exposure. In his March 2018 claim, the Veteran wrote that his lung condition was "due to job duties in military ([] asbestos) (radar system to tail aircraft)." He did not provide any detail supporting this contention, such as how he knew there was asbestos in this instrument, how he was exposed to it through his duties, and how often he worked with the instrument. The RO requested more information about the alleged exposure in November 2018, but the Veteran did not respond. Thus, the Board does not find that this statement is persuasive evidence of asbestos exposure. The available evidence does not support exposure to asbestos. His personnel and service records are negative for asbestos exposure and job duties that would entail exposure to asbestos. He did not specify the respiratory condition for which he seeks service connection, but his medical records show diagnoses of sleep apnea, allergic rhinitis, and asthma. None of these conditions have been related to asbestos by his medical providers. Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran was not exposed to asbestos in service, nor is there any suggestion a current condition is related to asbestos exposure. The Board further finds that his respiratory conditions are not otherwise related to service. His service treatment records are negative for relevant complaints, he denied asthma, shortness of breath, hay fever, chronic cough, chest pain or pressure, and frequent trouble sleeping on his separation report of medical history, and his separation examination was normal. He was diagnosed with sleep apnea by sleep study in October 2015, more than 40 years after separation from service. Asthma and allergic rhinitis were not documented in his medical records until February 2018, also more than 40 years after separation from service. Importantly, the Veteran has not alleged these conditions began in service or that he has experienced symptoms since service. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence is against service connection for a respiratory disorder, and the claim is denied. The Board notes that the Veteran was not afforded a medical examination for this condition but finds that the duty to provide an examination was not triggered. Specifically, the evidence does not establish an in-service event, injury, or disease and there is sufficient evidence to decide the case. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006). Thus, a remand is not warranted to obtain an examination. 4. Entitlement to service connection for lower right extremity neuropathy is denied. 5. Entitlement to service connection for lower left extremity neuropathy is denied. 6. Entitlement to service connection for upper right extremity neuropathy is denied. 7. Entitlement to service connection for upper left extremity neuropathy is denied. The Veteran seeks service connection for neuropathy of his lower and upper right and left extremities. The Board finds that service connection is not warranted. His service treatment records are negative for neurological complaints, he denied neuritis on his separation report of medical history, and his separation examination was negative for neurological conditions. His private medical records first show complaints of muscle cramps in both legs, paresthesias in his bilateral upper extremities, and weakness in the bilateral lower extremities in May 2015, more than 40 years after separation from service. There is also no specific diagnosis of a neuropathy disorder. To the extent the Veteran has a current disability, no evidence relates it to service. Importantly, the Veteran has not alleged these symptoms began in service or shortly after service, or that he has experienced symptoms since service. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence is against service connection for neuropathy of the bilateral upper or lower extremities, and the claims are denied. The Board notes that the Veteran was not afforded a medical examination for neuropathy but finds that the duty to provide an examination was not triggered. Specifically, the evidence does not establish an in-service event, injury, or disease and there is sufficient evidence to decide the case. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006). Thus, a remand is not warranted to obtain an examination. 8. Entitlement to service connection for a vestibular disorder is denied. 9. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is denied. 10. Entitlement to service connection for constipation is denied. 11. Entitlement to service connection for dry mouth is denied. 12. Entitlement to service connection for a scar status post heart surgery is denied. The Veteran seeks service connection for a vestibular disorder, erectile dysfunction, constipation, dry mouth, and a scar secondary to diabetes mellitus, a heart disorder, and/or a respiratory disorder. Because service connection for those conditions has been denied, secondary service connection cannot be granted for a vestibular disorder, erectile dysfunction, constipation, dry mouth, and a scar, and the claims are denied. There have been no allegations raising direct service connection. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Lavan 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.