Citation Nr: A21020432 Decision Date: 12/22/21 Archive Date: 12/22/21 DOCKET NO. 190211-1978 DATE: December 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for leukemia is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving the benefit of the doubt in the Veteran's favor, he was exposed to herbicide agents while stationed in Thailand. 2. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, that is presumed due to exposure to herbicide agents. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 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 from January 1967 to June 1987. A rating decision was issued under the legacy system in July 2017. In September 2018, the Veteran opted into the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), by submitting a Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) election form and selecting the higher-level review option. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued an AMA rating decision pursuant to RAMP in January 2019, which is the decision on appeal. The Veteran timely appealed this rating decision to the Board in February 2019 and requested a hearing. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 29, 2019 decision, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran and his attorney at the July 1, 2021 hearing or within 90 days. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). Service Connection The Veteran contends that he developed chronic lymphocytic leukemia due to his exposure to herbicides while stationed in Thailand. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service if they were noted as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if continuity of the same symptomatology has existed since service, with no intervening cause. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (b), 3.307, 3.309(a). Favorable findings in the January 2019 decision on appeal include a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and confirmation that the Veteran served at the Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) during the Vietnam era. Veterans exposed to Agent Orange or other listed herbicide agents are presumed service-connected for certain conditions, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia, even if there is no record of such disease during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 (a)(6), 3.309(e). For purposes of establishing service connection for a disability resulting from exposure to a herbicide agent, a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962 and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (f). The Veteran served during the presumptive period, as noted above; however, the current evidence of record does not reflect any service in the Republic of Vietnam. Regarding establishing entitlement to service connection on a presumptive basis based on service in Thailand, the first requirement is service at RTAFB in U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, or Don Muang. If a Veteran served on one of these air bases as a security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by MOS (military occupational specialty), performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, then herbicide exposure should be acknowledged on a facts-found or direct basis. Here, as noted, the Veteran served at Udorn RTAFB; however, he did not serve in one of these specialties. Here, the AOJ found that given the Veteran's military occupation specialty of auxiliary police augmentee, which did not concede perimeter duties, the evidence did not support exposure to herbicides. See DPRIS Response. However, significantly, the Veteran has consistently reported that during the course of his duties, he routinely patrolled the perimeter of the base. See July 2021 Hearing Transcript. He also submitted a statement from a fellow solider, dated in July 2021, regarding duties on an around the perimeter. See July 2021 Buddy Statement, Statement in Support of Claim. The lay witness stated that due to the Veteran's duties as an auxiliary police augmentee, he was routinely exposed to herbicides sprayed around the perimeter. He also stated the Veteran jogged the perimeter and his barracks were close to the perimeter. See id. The Board finds the Veteran's reports are consistent with the circumstances of his service. Moreover, the Veteran has submitted a statement from a fellow soldier who would have actual knowledge of the duties performed while stationed at Udorn RTAFB. Therefore, the Board finds the Veteran's assertions credible and supported by contemporaneous military records. Therefore, resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that, due to the Veteran's duties and location, he was exposed to Agent Orange during his service at Udorn RTAFB. Accordingly, because he is currently diagnosed with a disease that has been identified as associated with herbicide exposure (i.e., chronic lymphocytic leukemia) and was exposed to herbicide agents during his service in Thailand, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia on a presumptive basis. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e). M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Berry, 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.