Citation Nr: A21019124 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 12/01/21 DOCKET NO. 210507-157944 DATE: December 1, 2021 ORDER Service connection for Parkinson's disease is granted. THE VETERAN'S CONTENTIONS The Veteran contends that his Parkinson's disease was caused by exposure to Agent Orange during service. See February 2019 fully developed claim; June 2019 correspondence; August 2019 claim. He stated that he worked on the flight line as a mechanic and that his duties took him to the perimeter of the Ubon Royal Thai Airforce base. See January 2020 Request for Higher Level Review. In furtherance of his belief as to the relationship between his Parkinson's disease and his service, he reported that he went off the base two to three times per week to go into town for food (passing through the base perimeter) and that he had no family history of Parkinson's disease. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. 2. The Veteran served at Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) and his duties brought him near the perimeter of that base where Agent Orange is known to have been used. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Air Force from January 1966 to May 1969. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2021 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55 (to be codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). This law creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)'s decision on their claim to seek review. This decision has been written consistent with the new AMA framework. Following the February 2021 rating decision, the Veteran timely appealed to the Board by filing a VA Form 10182 in May 2021. He requested a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned VLJ on November 29, 2021. As this appeal is being processed and granted under the Board's "One Touch" program, a transcript of the hearing is not yet in the claims file but will be obtained and added to the claims file at a later time. Under the AMA framework, in adjudicating this claim, the Board may consider: (1) evidence in the record at the time of the February 2021 rating decision; (2) evidence submitted by the Veteran or her representative at the November 29, 2021 Board hearing, including testimony; and (3) evidence submitted by the appellant or her representative within the 90-day period following the November 29, 2021 Board hearing. The Board notes that the 90-day period to submit evidence has not yet elapsed. However, as the Board is granting the Veteran's claim in full, there is no prejudice to the Veteran by not waiting for the full 90-day period to expire. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F. 3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). Service connection for certain diseases, to include Parkinson's disease, may be granted based on presumed exposure to certain herbicide agents, even though there is no record of such disease during service. Presumed exposure to an herbicide (Agent Orange) applies for a Veteran who had active military, naval, or air service for at least 90 days, during the period beginning on January 9, 1962 and ending on May 7, 1975, that included service in the Republic of Vietnam or other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in Vietnam. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(e), 3.313. The foregoing statutory and regulatory provisions do not establish a presumption of exposure to herbicide agents based on service in Thailand. However, per information from the Department of Defense, VA recognizes that herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, were used at certain times and places at some military bases in Thailand during the Vietnam Era, including Ubon RTAFB. As a result, special consideration of herbicide exposure on a factual basis for veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thai military bases during the Vietnam era is required. In the February 2021 rating decision, the RO favorably found that: 1) new and relevant evidence had been received and the Veteran's claim for service connection for Parkinson's disease was reconsidered; 2) the Veteran has a diagnosed disability as VA and UC Health records show a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease; 3) the Veteran has sufficient service to meet the minimum requirements for presumptive service connection; 4) the claimed disability is a chronic disease, which may be presumptively linked to the Veteran's military service; and 5) the claimed issue became manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more following service. The military personnel records in this case show that the Veteran served at Ubon RTAFB during service. His DD Form 214 shows that his military occupational specialty was aircraft maintenance specialist. The Board finds that the Veteran's contentions that his duties placed him near the perimeter of the base are competent and credible. Resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that his duties brought him to the perimeter of the base in Thailand during his service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Thus, the Veteran's herbicide exposure is presumed and service connection for Parkinson's disease is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6) and 3.309(e). S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Samuelson, 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.