Citation Nr: A21020591 Decision Date: 12/28/21 Archive Date: 12/28/21 DOCKET NO. 190327-3550 DATE: December 28, 2021 ORDER Service connection for prostate cancer is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was as likely as not exposed to an herbicide agent during his service at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) in Thailand. 2. The Veteran's diagnosed prostate cancer is presumed to be due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from June 1966 to June 1970 and November 1990 to June 1991 in the United States Air Force which included service in the United States Air Force Reserves. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In a February 2016 legacy rating decision, service connection for prostate cancer was denied. In February 2017, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement, a statement of the case was issued in July 2018, and a substantive appeal was received in August 2018. In November 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 (HLR) lane. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a RAMP HLR decision in February 2019 which is the decision on appeal. In February 2019 the Veteran submitted VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal and elected the Hearing docket. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned in July 2021; the transcript is of record. The Board may consider the evidence of record at the time of the RAMP opt-in as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). Service connection may be granted for a disability due to a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To substantiate a claim of service connection there must be evidence of: (1) a present disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; 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, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For the showing of chronic disease in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. If chronicity is not established, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). However, the regulatory provisions pertaining to chronicity and continuity of symptomatology are constrained by 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), and thus such provisions are only available to establish service connection for the specific chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Here, the Board notes that the Veteran has been diagnosed with prostate cancer which is subject to service connection based upon continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). VA regulations provide that certain diseases associated with exposure to herbicide agents may be presumed to have been incurred in service even if there is no evidence of the disease in service, provided the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6) are met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, any of the diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (which includes prostate cancer) may be presumed to have been incurred in-service even if there is no evidence of the disease in service. In order to gain presumptive service connection for prostate cancer, it shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). Initially, the Board notes that there is no material dispute that the Veteran has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. The issue before the Board is whether this disability can be directly or presumptively related to his military service. The Veteran alleges that he was exposed to herbicides while stationed at Korat RTAFB in Thailand. The Veteran's DD Form 214 and service personnel records reflect that he had 1 year, 1 months and 6 days of foreign and/or sea service. He served in Thailand from June 1, 1968 to July 6, 1969 with the 388th Combat Support Group at Korat RTAFB. His military occupational specialty was General Accounting Specialist. He was also a member of the Korat soccer and karate teams. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that he traveled via bus on a regular basis and the bus had to be unloaded and inspected and he would stand in areas of the perimeter where Agent Orange had been sprayed. The Veteran submitted copies of multiple bus tickets which stated "USAIRTHAI FRIENDSHIP." He traveled via bus as he taught English at a school in a town off the Korat RTAFB and he also traveled as part of the soccer team. He also asserts that he traveled for purposes of transporting government funds. Service personnel records reflect that he traveled via vehicle to Don Muang Airport, Thailand in August 1968 to receive and transport mail and that he traveled via a military aircraft to Bangkok, Thailand in December 1968 to transport government funds. The Veteran has also asserted that he flew in C-130s to Da Nang Air Base, Vietnam to pick up government funds and mail. He has asserted that he exited the aircraft and had boots on ground in Da Nang. VA has determined that there was significant use of herbicide agents on the fenced-in perimeters of military bases in Thailand intended to eliminate vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes. Special consideration of herbicide exposure on a facts-found basis is extended to those Veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. This allows for presumptive service connection of the diseases associated with herbicide exposure. See M21-1, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section H, para. 5(b). The majority of troops in Thailand during the Vietnam era were stationed at the RTAFBs of U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and 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 occupational specialty, performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, then herbicide exposure should be acknowledged on a facts found or direct basis. Id. In this case, the documentary evidence of record does not reflect that the Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam; rather he served in Thailand. After reviewing the evidence discussed above, and affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board accepts that the Veteran has presented credible evidence indicating that his duties in service required him to frequently travel in and out of the Korat RTAFB and such is supported by his service personnel records and his military occupational specialty. The Veteran's accounts of his exposure are consistent and detailed and are supported by the evidence of record. It is therefore found that he served near the air base perimeter at Korat RTAFB. The Board also finds the Veteran's reports of flying to Da Nang to be credible and finds that it is likely that he did step foot in the Republic of Vietnam as part of his duties. Based on these findings, exposure to herbicide agents such as Agent Orange may thus be presumed, and it can be presumed that his prostate cancer was due to such herbicide agent exposure in service. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54 (1990). Marissa Caylor Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M.W. Kreindler, 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.