Citation Nr: 21010186 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 19-17 792 DATE: February 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for residuals of prostate cancer secondary to herbicide exposure is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma secondary to herbicide exposure is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of skin cancer secondary to herbicide exposure is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from April 1966 to March 1970.These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from November 2016 and January 2018 rating decisions by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board finds that additional development is required before the claims on appeal are decided. The Veteran contends that his claimed disabilities are related to herbicide exposure during service in Thailand. Specifically, he asserts that he was exposed to Agent Orange while serving as a freight traffic specialist. In that role, he reportedly handled drums of Agent Orange. The Veteran also reported that drums often leaked onto his body and that he was required to clean up the drums with rags. Finally, the Veteran reported that he was also selected to augment the forces of the Air Police while serving in Thailand, requiring him to help guard the perimeter of the base. VA has determined that special consideration of herbicide exposure on a factual basis should be extended to veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. In this case, the Veteran’s military personnel records confirm that he served at Nakhon Phanom Air Base from February to August of 1969. However, his military occupational specialty (MOS) at that time, freight traffic specialist, is not an MOS that explicitly placed him on or near the perimeters for purposes of conceding herbicide exposure on a direct factual basis. Thus, the Board finds that remand is necessary for an attempt to verify the Veteran’s exposure to herbicides in Thailand, specifically Nakhon Phanom Air Base. Additionally, the Veteran has not yet been afforded VA examinations in connection with his claims. Treatment records reflect diagnoses and treatment for skin cancer, prostate cancer, and glaucoma. The Veteran asserted that he began having issues with his skin within two years of active duty. He also reported that he required bilateral cataract surgery at 38 years old, despite the fact that there is no history of cataracts in his family, and that most people do not require cataract surgery until after 60 years of age. The Board finds that the evidence meets the low threshold of McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006), and that VA examinations are warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Joint Services Records and Research Center (JSRRC) or other appropriate official source and request verification of whether the Veteran had exposure to herbicides at Royal Thai Air Force Base at Nakhon Phanom from February 1969 to August 1969, to include whether the Veteran’s MOS as a freight traffic specialist required the handling of Agent Orange drums. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for appropriate examinations to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed disabilities. The claims file must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with each examination. All tests deemed necessary should be conducted and the results reported. Following review of the claims file, the relevant examiner should respond to following: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran’s (a) prostate cancer residuals; (b) glaucoma; and (c) skin cancer residuals had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service, to include as a result of duties or exposures as a freight traffic specialist and sun exposure while serving in Thailand? Please explain why or why not. A complete rationale for the opinions rendered must be provided. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, the examiner must expressly indicate this and state why it is so. (Continued on the next page)   3. After completing the above actions and any other development as may be indicated as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the case should be reviewed by the AOJ on the basis of additional evidence. If the benefits sought are not granted, the appellant 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. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Roya Bahrami, 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.