Citation Nr: 21006344 Decision Date: 02/03/21 Archive Date: 02/03/21 DOCKET NO. 20-09 799 DATE: February 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s diabetes mellitus is related to his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1101, 111, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the United States Army from December 1965 to September 1967. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2020); see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The evaluation of evidence generally involves a three-step inquiry. First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a “competent” source. Second, the Board must then determine if the evidence is credible, or worthy of belief. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308 (2007). Third, the Board must weigh the probative value of the evidence in light of the entirety of the record. A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2020). When a claimant seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the claimant prevails. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 4 (1990). The preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim for benefits to be denied. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). The Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, so the issue before the Board is nexus to service. The nexus requirement may be satisfied if the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent in service and has a disease that is presumed to be associated with herbicide exposure, like diabetes mellitus. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(2) (2018); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2020). A veteran who, during active service, served between September 1, 1967 and August 31, 1971 in a unit, that as determined by the Department of Defense, operated in or near the Korean DMZ in an area in which herbicides are known to have been applied during that period, 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 that service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116(b). The record shows the Veteran served in the United States Army from December 1965 to September 1967. In December 2018, a letter was sent to the Veteran requesting more information so that a request could be sent to the U.S. Army & Joint Services and Research Center (JSRRC) to verify the Veteran’s service near the Korean DMZ. The requisite information was not submitted, and thus, his specific location could not be verified. Nevertheless, the evidence of record shows that the Veteran was assigned to the Headquarters, Headquarters, 6th Battalion, 37th Artillery. The Veteran’s unit is not listed by the Department of Defense as one of the units along the DMZ exposed to herbicide agents. See Veterans Benefits Adjudication Manual M21-1 IV.ii.1.H.4.b. The Veteran provided lay evidence to show he spent time on the perimeter of the DMZ while in service. The Veteran reported that he worked on the perimeter and witnessed the spraying of chemicals. Additionally, he stated that he was exposed to herbicide agents in the course of his duties because as an artillery specialist he had to coordinate artillery operations and readiness, which required daily travel along the perimeter. The record also contains a letter of commendation that the Veteran received for his artillery survey performance in an operation north of the Imjin River, which runs through the DMZ. (Continued on the next page)   In considering all the evidence, the Board finds that service connection for diabetes is warranted. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s unit is not listed on the Department of Defense’s list of units exposed to herbicide agents. Nevertheless, the Veteran has provided sufficient credible lay evidence that the Board finds credible and probative. The Veteran presented lay statements describing how his in-service duties put him near the perimeter. Furthermore, his letter of commendation puts him in combat near the Imjin river. Accordingly, under the facts of this case, service connection for diabetes mellitus due to herbicide agent exposure is granted on a presumptive basis. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Brunot, Associate 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.