Citation Nr: 21077551 Decision Date: 12/30/21 Archive Date: 12/30/21 DOCKET NO. 16-02 789 DATE: December 30, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's diabetes mellitus is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1967 to August 1969 and from November 1969 to December 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran seeks service connection for diabetes mellitus which he contends was first diagnosed in 1975. Additionally, in a February 2013 Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran's former attorney contended that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus was due to exposure to herbicide agents during active duty in Vietnam. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, if a Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, diabetes mellitus shall be service connected if the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 1116 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) are met, even though there is no record of such disease during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2011). The November 1987 military service treatment records note hyperglycemia. VAMC records indicate a diagnosis of diabetes in 2003. An October 2011 VA examination report notes the Veteran's claim that he was diagnosed with diabetes in 1975 by Dr. K. at the Seima VAMC. In a June 2000 rating decision, the RO found that the Veteran served in Vietnam, stated, "[e]xposure to herbicides is conceded," and granted service connection for malignant fibrous histiocytoma of the left thigh. This conclusion was not overturned by finding of clear and unmistakable error. However, in the rating decision on appeal, the RO concluded that the Veteran was not exposed to herbicide agents and denied service connection for diabetes mellitus. In December 2018, the Board remanded the claim with a directive for further development, specifically to try to verify the Veteran's claim of herbicide exposure. Herbicide agent exposure was not verified. In April 2021, the Board again remanded the claim with a directive to obtain a VA examination and opinion on the issue of service connection for diabetes. The June 2021 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's diabetes was not incurred in, or caused by an in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner stated, "there is no evidence that diabetes began in service" and "If Vet was separated from military in 1987 and only borderline [diabetic] in 2004 then, by definition, he could not have had DM while in service." Discussion of whether there was substantial compliance with the Board's remand instructions is not necessary because the benefit is being granted in full. The RO has not overturned its original finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents via a finding of clear and unmistakable error. Diabetes mellitus is a condition that is presumptively associated with exposure. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Service connection for diabetes mellitus is granted. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Kathleen M. Fiorillo, 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.