Citation Nr: 21008926 Decision Date: 02/18/21 Archive Date: 02/18/21 DOCKET NO. 17-28 716 DATE: February 18, 2021 ORDER Service connection for prostate cancer is granted. Service connection for diabetes mellitus type II is granted.   FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had regular contact with base perimeters during service in Thailand. 2. The Veteran has prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus type II to a compensable degree. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria to establish service connection for prostate cancer are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 2. The criteria to establish service connection for diabetes mellitus type II are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from May 1972 to March 1976. The case is on appeal from March 2017 and June 2017 rating decisions. In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. Following the most recent April 2018 statement of the case (SOC) and supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), the Veteran submitted additional evidence in support of his claim. As the benefits to which the evidence relates are fully allowed, remand for initial RO consideration is not necessary. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c).   1. Service connection for prostate cancer. 2. Service connection for diabetes mellitus type II Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. A veteran seeking compensation under these provisions must establish three elements: “(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) 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.” Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, certain diseases, such as diabetes mellitus type II and prostate cancer, are presumed to be service connected if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6) are met, even though there is no record of the disease during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). VA laws and regulations provide that a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam war, shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to the contrary. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). Additionally, VA has determined that there was use of herbicides on or near the perimeters of military bases in Thailand intended to eliminate vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes. See https://www.publichealth.va.gov/ exposures/agentorange/locations/thailand.asp. If a veteran served in the U.S. Air Force in Thailand during the Vietnam era, and provided perimeter security on Royal Thai Air Force Bases (RTAFB) at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat or Don Muang, or who were stationed on small Army installations as a member of the military police (MP), 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, herbicide exposure should be conceded on a facts-found or direct basis. VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Analysis The Veteran contends that he was exposed to herbicide agents, such as Agent Orange, while serving in Thailand during the period of the Vietnam War. He asserts that he was stationed at Takhli RTAFB, and that his duties as Weapons Load Crew Member, which included the maintenance, installation and removal of all conventional munitions and guided aircraft missiles and rockets in support of Air Force operations in Vietnam, exposed him regularly to the herbicides sprayed around the perimeter of the Takhli RTAFB. Initially, the Board notes the Veteran has a current diagnosis of prostate cancer which was diagnosed in October 2016. See November 2016 prostate cancer Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). Additionally, the Veteran has a diagnosis of diabetes, which was first noted in 2017, which in turn appears to be type II diabetes mellitus. See March 2017 Twin Port Ports VA outpatient clinic. Thus, the current disability element of both claims has been established. A DD-214 of record reflects the Veteran’s MOS was as a Weapons Mechanic. Service personnel records (SPRs) reflect that the Veteran had service at the Takhli RTAFP in Thailand from December 1972 to December 1973. In March 2017, the Veteran indicated to a VA representative that while stationed in Takhli RAFB he spent every other day at the end of the runway arming and de-arming weapons on fighter jets. He explained that the end of the runway was near the base perimeter. In a May 2017 statement from the Veteran’s former Crew Chief, Mr. K.W. indicated that he personally observed the day-to-day duties performed by the Veteran at the end of the runway, which in turn was located at the base perimeter. Mr. K.W. added that he witnessed how the surrounding areas of these locations were overgrown with grass and other jungle foliage which were routinely cleared by base personnel using various techniques, to include spraying. In a separate 2017 lay statement, Mr. G.A.L, a former service member who served with the Veteran in Takhli RAFB, indicated that their duties as part of the Weapons Load Crew placed them on the flight line at the end of the runway which were located near the base perimeter. A third lay statement was received in August 2019. Mr. L.N.B., another former service member, indicated that as part of the crew in charge of loading armament while serving in Thailand, they had to work at the end of both ends of the base’s runway; areas that joined the base perimeter, and where they spent at least 12 hours per day. A fourth lay statement was received in October 2020. Mr. W.O.S. indicated that during the Vietnam War he was assigned with the Veteran at Takhli RAFB as part of the Munitions Maintenance Squadron. He indicated that during that time they either performed their duties right at the perimeter or near the perimeter as there was where the end of the runways were located. Mr. W.O.S. also noted that it is fair to say that they worked over 1,000 hours during their assigment at Takhli RAFB. These statements are accompanied by color photographs reflecting what appears to be the Veteran’s working area and in close proximity to the base perimeter. In light of the Veteran’s MOS and SPRs indicating his physical presence in Takhli RTAFB between 1972 and 1973, the Board finds his statements and those submitted by his fellow service members as to the duties performed around the perimeter of the RTAFBs competent and credible and assigns them probative value as to the in-service exposure to herbicide agents. This applies to the specific facts of this case. As to the nexus element, the Board notes that prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus type II are diseases listed as presumptively due to herbicide exposure. For the limited purpose of resolving this appeal, the Board assumes that both diseases have manifested to at least a degree of 10 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). Moreover, there is no affirmative evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the evidence is at least in equipoise as to the nexus element, particularly when resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Therefore, service connection for prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus type II is warranted. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board William Pagan, 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.