Citation Nr: 21075679 Decision Date: 12/21/21 Archive Date: 12/21/21 DOCKET NO. 18-15 388 DATE: December 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection of ischemic heart disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection of squamous cell carcinoma of the left parotid gland is remanded. Entitlement to service connection of facial scars due to cancer surgery is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1969 to Decembe1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. a transcript of that hearing is of record. 1. Entitlement to service connection of ischemic heart disease 2. Entitlement to service connection of squamous cell carcinoma of the left parotid gland 3. Entitlement to service connection of facial scars due to cancer surgery Inasmuch as the Board regrets additional delay in the adjudication of these claims, a remand is necessary to ensure complete development of the issues. The Veteran seeks service connection of heart disease and parotid gland cancer with associated facial scars, which he asserts are directly related to herbicide exposure during active service. If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service in Vietnam, then certain diseases, such as ischemic heart disease and cancers of the pharynx, shall be service connected even though there is no record of such disease during service. For the purposes of this section, the term "herbicide agent" means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e), 3.313. The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to a presumption of herbicide exposure on three bases: (1) an approximately 2-hour stop-over in Cam Ranh Bay while en route from the Philippines to Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) in Thailand; (2) a 10-day temporary duty (TDY) in 1972 at Bien Hoa in the Republic of Vietnam; or, (3) his confirmed service at the Ubon and Takhli RTAFBs. Of concern to the Board at this juncture is the Veteran's hearing testimony that during the Easter Offensive in April 1972, he was sent for approximately 10 days to Bien Hoa where he served as an F-4 foreman loading ordinance on aircraft en route between Ubon RTAFB and strike points with ordinance. Initially, it is uncontested that the Veteran served at both Ubon and Takhli RTAFBs. Additionally, the RO has undertaken development regarding the Veteran's assertions regarding transfer through Cam Ranh Bay. However, regarding the Veteran's assertions that he served in Bien Hoa in 1972, the Board finds that additional development is necessary as this specifically alleges temporary duty (TDY) in the Republic of Vietnam, which would entitle the Veteran to a presumption of tactical herbicide exposure, if confirmed. Unfortunately, this portion of the appeal was only first brought to the attention of VA during the Veteran's hearing before the undersigned. At that time, he provided oral testimony regarding such service, and also asserted that he had confirmed such service with other fellow service members, although he has not provided any additional evidence of that service such as lay statements from others who may be able to attest to such TDY. As such, the Board will remand these claims for further development of this theory of presumptive herbicide exposure by the Centralized Processing Team which develops such claims and makes determinations regarding in-country service in the Republic of Vietnam. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Invite the Veteran to submit any additional evidence in support of his appeal. Specifically, the Veteran should be requested to provide any additional evidence he may have regarding service at Bien Hoa in 1972, to include any lay statements or evidence he may have gained from fellow service members. 2. The RO should undertake to ensure that the Veteran's complete military records are available, to include service treatment records and personnel records. Thereafter, the RO should refer the appeal to the Centralized Processing Team for research and documentation of service in the Republic of Vietnam, particularly of any service as an F-4 at Bien Hoa in approximately April 1972. The Centralized Processing Team should make a formal determination of whether the Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam and associate that determination with the claim file. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Pryce, Counsel