Citation Nr: 21005305 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 15-24 429 DATE: February 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for type 2 diabetes, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from April 1966 to April 1970. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2013 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In May 2018, a Travel Board hearing was held before the undersigned; a transcript is in the record. In July 2018 the matter was remanded for additional development. Entitlement to service connection for type 2 diabetes mellitus, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents. The Veteran served at Ubon Air Force Base in Thailand from March 1967 to March 1968. He contends that while stationed in Thailand, he was exposed to herbicides, which caused his diabetes mellitus. Diabetes mellitus is a disease that may be presumed to be service connected if diagnosed in a veteran who was exposed to herbicides in service. Thus, a threshold critical question before the Board is whether the Veteran is shown to have been exposed to herbicide agents in service. Among the various allegations of the Veteran’s alleged exposure to herbicide agents in service is that that his duties as a protective coating specialist often placed him at the Ubon Air Base perimeter. He has reported he participated in paving runways, taxi lanes, and streets around the base. In support of this allegation is a performance report that indicates he was assigned as a crew leader tasked with repainting the runway in December 1967. The report also notes that he completely remarked the streets on the base and restored “Mobile Rapcon Trailers.” Such evidence shows that he was plausibly near the base perimeter (depending on the locations of the runways, streets, and aforementioned trailers). He also contends that (as an augmentee) he engaged in perimeter security duties which likewise placed him at the base perimeter. The July 2018 Board remand outlined the specific procedures for verifying exposure to herbicide agents. Under VA policy, if a veteran served on or near the perimeter of certain Air Force Bases in Thailand (including Ubon) during the Vietnam era herbicide exposure is to be presumed. The remand found that verification of the Veteran’s alleged exposure while working near the perimeter had not been completely developed and requested verification by the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC). The remand directed the AOJ to (upon obtaining more information from the Veteran) forward the details of the Veteran’s contentions to the JSRRC for verification. The directives instructed the AOJ to forward the case to a JSRRC coordinator for a finding whether the information of record is sufficient to seek JSRRC verification, and if not, to explain what information would be needed. In response, the AOJ provided a memorandum by a Military Records Specialist (MRS) outlining why verification research from the JSRRC was not warranted. The memorandum first discussed a May 2015 response to an Herbicide Exposure Verification Request from the Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA) indicating that non-tactical herbicides were not used at Ubon until June 1970, so it did not matter whether the Veteran was near the perimeter. Further, the MRS noted that the Regional Office (VARO) conducted a January 2020 review of historical maps of Ubon and could not identify whether the Mobile Rapcon Trailers were near the perimeter and determined that no sections of the flight line were considered near the base perimeter. The MRS further found inability to ascertain a 60-day timeframe for exposure (as required for requests to the JSRRC) for the Veteran based on his extensive service in Thailand, and also stated that the Veteran would need to identify a specific event that would have placed him near the perimeter other than the events already claimed. Regarding the claimed duties as an augmentee, the memorandum indicates that a review of the Veteran’s service records was negative for findings to substantiate that he served in that capacity. The Board finds the MRS conclusions inadequate and non-responsive to the Board remand directives. The May 2015 response from AFHRA runs afoul of VA policies for applying the presumption of exposure of exposure to herbicide agents (while serving at the certain airbases in Thailand), requiring presence on or near the perimeter of the base during the Vietnam era. Furthermore, service personnel records show that the Veteran’s duties did not only include repaving the runway, but also the streets of the base. The January 2020 review of historical maps only considered whether the flight path was near the perimeter and did not discuss the base streets. In addition, the record presents multiple potential 60-day timeframes for possible verification of exposure, given that the most relevant question before the Board is whether the locations outlined by the Veteran were near the perimeter of the base. The Veteran’s reports of his duties in service are not in question (other than augmentee in base security allegations-dates of which he should have been asked to clarify, if considered critical. Finally, the prior Board remand instructed the AOJ to forward the information to the JSRRC for ultimate verification, and not to an MRS (and if the information of record was insufficient to seek verification, to arrange for development for sufficient information, explaining to the Veteran what additional information is necessary). The Board finds there has been less than substantial compliance with prior remand instructions, and that corrective action is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matter is REMANDED for the following: Forward the list of the Veteran’s service dates and duty locations (specifically including at the Ubon RTAFB from December 1967 through January 1968, but considering his entire tour of service at Ubon) and his contentions regarding the nature of his exposures to herbicides in service to the JSRRC and request verification of such exposure. What is sought is verification whether the Veteran’s work duties on the runway(s), taxi lanes, streets, or at the Mobile Rapcon Trailers placed him at or in close proximity to the base perimeter. A map of the base showing the runways, streets, buildings, and perimeter should provide the information needed (and should be provided for inclusion in the record). The determination made should address the plausibility of the Veteran’s accounts that (as an augmentee) he was assigned to base security duties, which periodically placed him at, or near, the base perimeter (whether such allegation is consistent or inconsistent with known Air Force practices, and if not, why not). The conclusions and rationale should be provided in a memorandum for the record. If the information is deemed insufficient, the JSRRC coordinator should identify (for the record) what additional information is needed to allow for verification, and the Veteran should be so advised, and offered opportunity to respond. GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Baker, 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.