Citation Nr: 21077287 Decision Date: 12/29/21 Archive Date: 12/29/21 DOCKET NO. 18-05 291 DATE: December 29, 2021 ORDER The issue of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's diabetes mellitus is not related to herbicide exposure, radiation exposure, or otherwise related to his active-duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. VETERAN CONTENTION The Veteran contends that while stationed at Fort McClellan in Alabama he was possibly exposed to radioactive compounds, cesium 137, cobalt-60, Agent Orange, Agent White, Agent Blue, mustard gas, nerve agents, and PCBs from the Monsanto facility nearby. He further contends that his diabetes mellitus is related to that chemical exposure. The Veteran asserts that, while stationed at Fort McClellan, he saw metal drums leaking whatever was in them into the water and ground that he and others washed themselves with, put in their mouth when they were thirsty, and slept on. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from October 1981 to March 1982. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) and the transcript is of record. This matter was previously before the Board in April 2021 at which time it was remanded for further development. Now, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is not warranted. Generally, to establish service connection, a showing of competent medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence must confirm (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 116667 (Fed. Cir 2004). Service connection may also be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) when a Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent, as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6), during active-duty service. Here, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, however his condition was not incurred in service nor is it related to the claimed in-service herbicide or radiation exposure. See 4/19/2017 CAPRI. In May 2017 the RO requested a review of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) inventory of herbicide operations to determine whether herbicide agents were used at Fort McClellan during the Veteran's period of active-duty service. See 5/4/2017 Email Correspondence. In response, the DoD replied that there was no need for Agent Orange use at Fort McClellan (in other words, Agent Orange was not used at Fort McClellan) nor was the location a shipping supply line. See 10/24/2017 Email Correspondence. According to the DoD response, all use of Agent Orange by the United States military was terminated in 1971, ten years before the Veteran's claimed exposure. Id. Additionally, the DOD determined that all evidence indicated that any herbicide use that the Veteran may have observed or been associated with was of the commercial variety, to which no disabilities are presumed to be linked. Id. With respect to radiation exposure, the Veteran was asked to complete a Radiation Risk Activity Information Form to assess the possibility of exposure. See 4/12/2021 Subsequent Development Letter. In response, the Veteran requested a 120-day extension (to August 12, 2021), and the extension was granted. See 5/14/2021 VA 21-4138 Statement in Support of Claim; 6/30/2021 Subsequent Development Letter. However, the Veteran never followed-up; no additional information regarding the Veteran's alleged radiation exposure was received. Finally, the Veteran underwent one C&P examination in furtherance of his claim. In the resultant opinion, the examiner opined that the Veteran's condition was not caused by active-duty service or chemical exposure while in service. Instead, the examiner opined that the etiology of the Veteran's diabetes mellitus was not attributable to one risk factor, but was due to multiple risk factors, obesity being the most significant one. See 9/30/2021 C&P Examination. Indeed, the record reflects that the Veteran experienced issues with obesity as remote as December 1985, and the examiner noted the use of bariatric surgery in March 2016 to combat his morbid obesity. See 2/2/1988 Medical Treatment Record-Non-Government Facility; 9/30/2021 C&P Examination. Given that the only competent evidence of record relates the Veteran's diabetes mellitus to his obesity and not his active duty service, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against finding exposure to herbicides or radiation and against attributing the Veteran's diabetes mellitus to active-duty service. Accordingly, service connection is not warranted. S. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Z. Sloley, Associate 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.