Citation Nr: A21020105 Decision Date: 12/16/21 Archive Date: 12/16/21 DOCKET NO. 190313-7182 DATE: December 16, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer and its residuals, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served at Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) with duties that placed him near the perimeter and is found to have been exposed to tactical herbicides. 2. Prostate cancer is presumed to be related to in-service exposure to herbicide agents. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to herbicide agents, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 113, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from November 1963 to November 1983. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2019 rating decision issued by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). Prior to this decision, the Veteran elected to opt into the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP), the AMA pilot program, via a February 2018 election form. In an August 2018 letter, the VA informed him that VA withdrew his legacy appeal and would continue under his selected higher-level review lane. In March 2019, the Veteran selected the Board's Hearing docket. Accordingly, the Board will consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2019 RAMP decision and the evidence submitted within 90 days after the Board hearing in September 2020. The Veteran testified at a September 2020 hearing held before a Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. With respect to the Veteran's claims decided herein, VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty-to-assist provisions. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has advanced any procedural arguments in relation to VA's duty to notify and assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Service Connection Service connection is awarded for disability that is the result of a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F. 3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service connection by establishing the occurrence of observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability that are subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1153(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Service connection can also be established by presumption for certain diseases, to include prostate cancer based on herbicide agent exposure. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6); 3.309(e). For VA purposes, an "herbicide agent" includes the chemicals 2,4D; 2,4,5T and its contaminant TCCD; cacodylic acid; and picloram. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(i). VA has recognized that special consideration for tactical herbicide exposure on a factual basis should be extended to Veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of RTAFB during the Vietnam Era, from February 28, 1961, to May 7, 1975. In adjudicating a claim, the competence and credibility of the Veteran must be considered. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368-69 (2005). Competent lay evidence is any evidence not requiring that the person giving the evidence have specialized education, training, or experience. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(2). When assessing the probative value of a medical opinion, the thoroughness and detail of the opinion must be considered. The opinion is considered probative if it is definitive and supported by detailed rationale. See Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 448-9 (2000). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant. The medical evidence of record establishes that the Veteran has a diagnosis of prostate cancer. Both VA medical records and private clinical records show a diagnosis of prostate cancer with residuals. The evidence does not establish, and the Veteran does not contend, that prostate cancer arose in service or during the first post-service year. Accordingly, direct service connection or presumptive service connection as chronic disease is not at issue. The Veteran argues that he was exposed to herbicide agents while stationed at Takhli RTAFB, which caused his prostate cancer. The Veteran testified at his September 2020 hearing that while stationed at Takhli RTAFB he was required to spend time on the perimeters of the base in the course of his duties as an aircraft mechanic and crew chief which took him to the flight line, runways and other areas on base where herbicides were used. The Veteran also testified that he was assigned additional duties, such as security details, that took him to the perimeter of the base. The Veteran also testified that he flew several missions into Vietnam and on two occasions spent the night on the ground in Vietnam. The Veteran also submitted two buddy statements by fellow airmen who were also stationed at Takhli RTAFB. Both men confirmed that their duties routinely required them to be at the perimeter of the base, frequently at the defoliated areas of the trim pad and runway run off areas. The Veteran's military occupational specialty was that of a tactical aircraft maintenance technician. The Veteran's military service records, service treatment records, buddy statements, and the Veteran's testimony establish the Veteran's presence at Takhli RTAFB. Although the Veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) was not that of policeman, patrol dog handler, or security guard, which would necessarily place his duties at the perimeter, given the Veteran's presence at Takhli RTAFB, and his duties at or near the perimeter of the base as an aircraft mechanic, he has sufficiently established the likelihood of exposure to areas where tactical herbicides were used in Thailand. The Board finds the Veteran's statements regarding service near the perimeter areas of Takhli RTAFB to be credible; exposure to herbicides is established. As to the final element of service connection, nexus, as an herbicide exposed Veteran, he is entitled to the presumption of a nexus under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307, as his claimed conditions is listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Accordingly, he is entitled to the applicable of the presumption of service connection afforded herbicide exposed Veterans. Therefore, entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents is granted. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Lauren Barletta 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.