Citation Nr: 21009353 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 16-31 144 DATE: February 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the competent and credible evidence is against finding the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1972 to May 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2019, the Board remanded this matter for further development. That development having been completed, this matter has returned to the Board for further appellate review. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus The Veteran seeks service connection for diabetes mellitus, which he asserts is a result of his service. The Veteran does not contend, and the evidence does not reflect, that his diabetes arose during service or within one year after discharge from service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309(a). Rather, the Veteran asserts that his diabetes was caused by his exposure to herbicide agents during service. In a November 2015 statement, the Veteran stated that he was exposed to herbicides and pesticides during his service in Korea and at Fort Riley, Kansas. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, to prove service connection there must be: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be established on a presumptive basis for certain specified diseases, including diabetes mellitus, if the Veteran served during specified time periods, was exposed to an herbicide agent, and the disease manifested to a degree of ten percent or more any time after service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). For purposes of establishing service connection for a disability resulting from exposure to herbicide agents, a veteran who served between April 1, 1968 and August 31, 1971, in a unit that, as determined by the Department of Defense (DoD), operated in or near the Korean demilitarized zone (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 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iv). The lack of availability of presumptive service connection for a disability based on exposure to herbicide agents does not preclude a veteran from establishing service connection with proof of direct causation, or on any other recognized basis. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran has a diagnosis of diabetes. Additionally, service personnel records reveal the Veteran had service in Korea and at Fort Riley. Regarding the Veteran’s claimed exposure to herbicides during his service in Korea, the Board acknowledges that diabetes mellitus is a disease presumptively associated with herbicide agent exposure. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). However, as the Veteran did not serve at or near the Korean DMZ during the relevant timeframe and under the relevant circumstances, he is not presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). Thus, evidence of actual exposure is needed to support this claim. Upon review of the record, no competent evidence of such exposure has been provided. In this regard, in November 2019, the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) indicated that there was not enough information to confirm the Veteran’s claimed exposure. Thereafter, in November 2019, the RO undertook additional development efforts to verify the Veteran’s claimed exposure to herbicides; however, the Board notes that the Veteran has not responded to the request for any documents showing exposure to herbicides. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) (“The duty to assist is not always a one-way street. If a veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence.”). Further, regarding the Veteran’s claimed in-service exposure to herbicides at Fort Riley, the Board has considered the Public Health Assessment from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) submitted by the Veteran regarding potentially hazardous exposures at Fort Riley. However, a review of the article reveals no evidence to support the Veteran’s claim that he was exposed to herbicides during his service at Fort Riley and developed diabetes as a result of such exposure. The Board specifically notes that the article states there is no public health hazard associated with consuming water from groundwater drinking sources or from exposure to contaminate soils at Fort Riley. Additionally, as stated above, the Veteran has failed to respond to a request by the RO for any documents showing exposure to herbicides. See Wood, 1 Vet. App. at 193. Thus, the Veteran’s exposure to herbicides or other harmful chemicals while stationed at Fort Riley has been unable to be verified. Although the Veteran believes that he was exposed to toxins during service that resulted in diabetes, as a lay person, he has not shown that he has specialized training sufficient to identify toxins or to render a medical opinion as to the etiology of diabetes. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis or etiology). In this regard, the identification of various chemicals and toxins and the etiology of diabetes are matters not capable of lay observation and require scientific training and medical expertise to determine. Thus, the opinion of the Veteran regarding whether he was actually exposed to various toxins and the etiology of his diabetes is not competent evidence. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination on this issue. However, there is no competent evidence of the condition in service, nor does the Veteran so contend; additionally, there is no competent evidence that the Veteran was actually exposed to various chemical agents in service. Accordingly, a VA examination is not required. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c); see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2006); Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (noting that a conclusory lay statement that a current condition is related to service is insufficient to warrant a medical examination because it would “eliminate the carefully drafted statutory standards governing the provision of medical examinations and require the Secretary to provide such examinations in virtually every veteran’s disability case”). In sum, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied. In reaching this decision, the Board considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the doctrine is not for application. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Lance, 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.