Citation Nr: 21008144 Decision Date: 02/11/21 Archive Date: 02/11/21 DOCKET NO. 18-55 382 DATE: February 11, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease due to herbicide exposure, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, he was exposed to herbicides during his service in Thailand and in the Republic of Vietnam 2. As the Veteran has been found to have been exposed to herbicides in Vietnam, his Parkinson’s disease, is presumed to have been caused by his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for Parkinson’s disease are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1970 to July 1978, to include service in Thailand and the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a May 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) in October 2017 and in November 2018 the RO issued a statement of the case. In December 2018, the Veteran perfected his substantive appeal and requested a hearing at a local VA office. In January 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a virtual hearing. A transcript of the hearing will be associated with the Veteran’s electronic claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease due to herbicide exposure, is granted. The Veteran is seeking presumptive service connection for Parkinson’s disease based on herbicide exposure during service. Specifically, he contends that while serving at the Nakhon Phanom Royal Thai Air Base (RTAB) in Thailand during the Vietnam era he participated in TDYs that required him to stay in Saigon, Vietnam, and in Cambodia and Laos, for a total period of three days at each location. He asserts that he was exposed to agent orange during his time in Vietnam and is therefore entitled to presumptive service connection for his Parkinson’s disease. See September 2016 Affidavit. Generally, to establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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, the so-called “nexus” requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for disability shown after service, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, shows that it was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, then certain diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, shall be service connected even though there is no record of such disease during service. For the purposes of this section, the term “herbicide agent” means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e), 3.313. In addition to exposure within the Republic of Vietnam, exposure to Agent Orange has been noted to have occurred in various places, including Thailand. VA has determined that U.S. Air Force Veterans who served on RTAFBs at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang, near the air base perimeter anytime between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975, may have been exposed to herbicides. Particularly, to benefit from the presumption of herbicide exposure at one of the above listed air bases, a veteran must have served 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 military occupational specialty (MOS), performance evaluation, or other credible evidence. See M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section C.10(q). In each case where a Veteran is seeking service connection for a disability, due consideration shall be given to the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service as shown by the Veteran’s service record, the official history of each organization in which the Veteran served, the Veteran’s treatment records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). Turning to the case at hand, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes Parkinson’s disease. See August 2016 VA Examination. Parkinson’s disease is a disease subject to presumptive service connection based on exposure to herbicides. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). As such the first element of service connection is met and the salient question is thus whether the Veteran served in Vietnam and/or on the perimeter of the Nakhon Phanom RTAFB and is therefore presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the evidence of record is sufficient to show that he served in Vietnam during the presumptive period. Specifically, the Veteran has provided sworn testimony that his military occupational specialty (MOS) while he was stationed at the Nakhon Phanom RTAFB required him to travel and stay for three days in Saigon, Vietnam. See September 2016 Affidavit; April 2016 Affidavit. The Board finds the Veteran’s consistent and competent statements regarding his service at the Nakhon Phanom RTAFB and in Vietnam credible. The record shows that the Veteran has been cooperative in seeking out sources of collateral evidence to support his claim, and as such the Board finds no reason to doubt the credibility of the evidence provided. See, e.g., September 2015 Correspondence. In addition, the AOJ, in its attempts to confirm the contentions of service in Vietnam merely found that historical reports are unable to be located. See January 2017 Correspondence. As such, there is nothing in evidence to explicitly contradict his reports. Rather, the record contains evidence to support the Veteran’s contentions regarding the places, types, and manner of his service. See generally Military Personnel Record; Service Treatment Records. Given the competent and probative lay evidence of the Veteran’s time spent in Vietnam, the Veteran’s military personnel records, and the August 2016 VA examination, the Board finds that, at the very least, the evidence is relatively evenly balanced on the question of whether the Veteran set foot in Vietnam during the Vietnam War era. Resolving all reasonable doubt on this matter in the Veteran’s favor, the Board concludes that the Veteran served in Vietnam during the Vietnam War era. As such, his exposure to herbicides in service is presumed. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). Based on the foregoing, specifically that the Veteran is currently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and was exposed to herbicides in Vietnam during the Vietnam era, the Board finds that the elements of presumptive service connection have been been. Accordingly, service connection for Parkinson’s disease due to herbicide exposure, is granted on a presumptive basis. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309; see also 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 49 (1990). KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Kaufer, 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.