Citation Nr: 21010142 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 16-57 596 DATE: February 24, 2021 REMANDED The issue of service connection for ischemic heart disease (IHD) to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from November 1970 to August 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2014 rating decision of a VA Regional Office (RO). The appeal was denied in a July 2019 Board decision. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a July 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the parties agreed to remand and vacate the portion of the Board’s July 2019 decision that denied entitlement to service connection for IHD. In a July 2020 order, the Court vacated and remanded the appeal. Entitlement to service connection for IHD to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents is remanded. The Veteran contends that his IHD is a result of herbicide agent exposure while stationed at Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base (AFB), in Thailand. Although he served as a personnel specialist at this assignment, he argues that he also served “augmentation duty” to the security force patrolling the base perimeter. He also contends that the base was small and barracks and workspaces were adjacent to the airfield where herbicides agents were used. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. BACKGROUND FOR THE RO ADJUDICATOR: Before the Court, the parties agreed that the Board did not fully explain why the Veteran’s service personnel records were more probative than the Veteran’s unsubstantiated allegations. It cited M21-1, IV.ii.1.H.4.a In his July 2014 application for service connection of IHD, the Veteran reported that he was “stationed in Ubon, Thailand and secondary duties included security augmentee trained in Pope [Air Force Base], [North Carolina].” The record does not presently indicate that the Veteran was “trained” for security duties while he was posted to Pope Air Force Base; nor any other training involving security specialties. His personnel file indicates that the Veteran’s Air Force military occupational specialty (DAFSC) was personnel administration. The Veteran’s service personnel file contains performance reports (Air Force Form 910) for his duty tenure. These reflect no mention of specialized security training during his assignment to Pope Air Force Base that: His performance evaluations from his assignment to Pope Air Force Base from November 1970 to February 1974 indicate that he served in the personnel specialist customer service center, where he was responsible for assisting base personnel in identification card applications, assignments, job specialty classifications, passport applications and responded to inquiries about other personnel matters including reenlistment statistics. There is nothing in these reports indicating that the Veteran was trained in security duties, in the main reports, or his listing of “facts and specific achievements.” His performance report for his tenure at Ubon, Thailand indicates he had similar administrative duties. It does not reflect that he served in any security capacity while assigned there. The Board is unable to determine if the Veteran was trained at Pope Air Force Base as he alleges, or whether he served as a security force “augmentee” while assigned to Ubon Air Force Base. In order to assist the Veteran substantiate this claim, please perform the remand directives below. 2. Contact the Veteran and request that he provide any substantiation in his possession or further information as to his report of security training while at Pope Air Force base. In particular, the Veteran should be invited to provide the dates, lengths and locations based on documentation or his recollections of the course curriculum. The Veteran may also submit any other further information about his claimed exposure to herbicides while performing duties at Ubon, 3. Based on the Veteran’s response, and if appropriate, the RO should consider forwarding the Veteran’s account to any U.S. Government records depositories, including the National Personnel Records Center, the Air Force Historical Research Agency or any other appropriate agencies. 4. Readjudicate the claim. If the benefits sought are not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. McDuffie, 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.