Citation Nr: 21073954 Decision Date: 12/13/21 Archive Date: 12/13/21 DOCKET NO. 17-06 319 DATE: December 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus (DM) type II due to exposure to herbicide agents is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was stationed at Takhli Air Force Base in Thailand beginning in March 1969, during the Vietnam Era. 2. It is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's duties as an electronic warfare repairman during his service at Takhli Air Force Base caused him to perform duties on and near the base perimeter. 3. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of type II DM. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for DM type II on a presumptive basis have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107(b) (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from in the United States Air Force from February 1967 to February 1971. His military occupational specialty (MOS) was an electronic warfare repairman. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office. In October 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty or for aggravation of a pre-existing injury or disease in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.306. Service connection may also be established on a presumptive basis if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent, such as Agent Orange, during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). To qualify for entitlement to service connection on a presumptive basis under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307, the disability must generally become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). In this context, the term "herbicide agent" is defined as a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962 and ending on May 7, 1975. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(i). The Veteran asserts that he was exposed to herbicides while serving at the Takhli Royal Air Force Base in Thailand and that his DM type II is a result of that exposure. In specific regard to claimed exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand, VA has adopted a procedure for verifying such exposure during the Vietnam Era. VA 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 as evidenced in a declassified Vietnam era Department of Defense document titled "Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report: Base Defense in Thailand." Specifically, the report observes that some evidence that the herbicides used on the Thailand base perimeters may have been either tactical, procured from the Republic of Vietnam, or a commercial variant of much greater strength and with the characteristics of tactical herbicides. See Parseeya-Picchione v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 171, 177 (2016). Accordingly, special consideration of herbicide exposure on a facts-found or direct basis should be extended to those veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. This allows for presumptive service connection of the diseases associated with herbicide exposure which includes type II DM. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(2)(H); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The majority of troops in Thailand during the Vietnam era were stationed at the Royal Thai Air Force Bases of U-Tapao, Ubon, 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, performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, then herbicide exposure should be acknowledged on a facts found or direct basis. This applies only during the Vietnam era, from February 28, 1961, to May 7, 1975. In this case, as a starting point, post-service treatment records reflect a diagnosis of DM II as early as the 1990s. This is consistent with the Veteran's hearing testimony wherein he testified that he was diagnosed as having DM around 1990. Regarding exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand, the Veteran asserted via his written statements and hearing testimony that he served as an electronic warfare repairment at Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand in 1969, and that his duties included servicing planes on runways along the perimeter. He also said that he policed the perimeter by picking up garbage, and he estimated that had been in direct contact with the perimeter approximately 20 to 30 times a month. He is competent to recall his military activities and whereabouts. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376, n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). His service personnel records show that he was assigned to the AEMS (Aircraft Engine Management System), Takhli, RTAFB (Royal Thai Air Force Base), Thailand, in March 1969, but they do not indicate whether his service was near the base perimeter. Although Veteran's MOS in Thailand as an electronic warfare repairman is not included in the list of MOS's that are known to involve duties near the base perimeter and his service personnel records do not otherwise show service near the base perimeter, the Board finds that the evidence is at least evenly balanced on this point based on his credible statements outlined above. As the reasonable doubt created by this relative equipoise in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds on a fact found basis that he did serve near the base perimeter approximately 20 to 30 times a month and he is thus presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (benefit of the doubt doctrine applies to all points within a claim as well as its ultimate disposition). As noted, he also carries a current diagnosis of DM type II. Thus, he meets the criteria for service connection on a presumptive basis under 38 U.S.C. § 1116 and 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 and 3.309 for diabetes mellitus type II. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Shawkey, 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.