Citation Nr: 21010734 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 16-06 257 DATE: February 25, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran currently has Parkinson’s disease, and he was likely exposed to herbicide agents during his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for Parkinson’s disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from April 1970 to March 1974. The Veteran testified before the undersigned at a January 2021 Board Hearing held via videoconference. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Veteran claims that he developed Parkinson’s disease due to exposure to herbicide agents. He claims that his Parkinson’s disease, diagnosed well after his active service, is due to exposure to herbicide agents during his active service in Southeast Asia, particularly including Thailand. Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In order to prevail on the issue of service connection there must be competent evidence of a current disability; medical evidence, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and competent evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease and the current disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition, diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents used in support of military operations in the Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) during the Vietnam era will be considered to have been incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1). Parkinson’s disease is a condition associated with herbicide exposure. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The presumption requires exposure to an herbicide agent and manifestation of the disease to a degree of 10 percent or more within the time period specified for each disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). The dispositive issue in this case is whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicides. Although veterans who served in Vietnam are presumed to have been exposed to herbicides, the Veteran did not serve in Vietnam as that term is defined in the applicable regulation. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6); January 2016 Formal Finding (discussing service records which fail to document service in the Republic of Vietnam). The service personnel records do reflect, however, that the Veteran was stationed at U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base (U-Tapao RATFB) from May 1973 to August 1973 (with additional travel in Southeast Asia during that period). See, e.g., Military Personnel Records (including May 1973 orders transferring to Thailand in May 1973 and showing return from Thailand in August 1973). There are multiple documents that provide guidance for VA in adjudicating claims of veterans claiming herbicide exposure in Thailand. The claims file contains a memorandum of record regarding general herbicide use in Thailand during the Vietnam Era from the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). VBA reviewed several reports, including the Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report: Base Defense in Thailand in determining whether veterans who served in Thailand were exposed to herbicides. VBA noted that the Department of Defense list of sites where tactical herbicides were used, tested, and stored revealed that limited testing of tactical herbicides were only conducted in Thailand from April 2, 1964 through September 8, 1964, near Pranburi, Thailand. The CHECO Report did not report the use of tactical herbicides on allied bases in Thailand, but it indicated sporadic use of non-tactical (commercial) herbicides within fenced perimeters. Thus, the memorandum noted, if a veteran's military occupational specialty (MOS) or unit was one that regularly had contact with the base perimeter, there was a greater likelihood of exposure to commercial pesticides, including herbicides. The memorandum provided an example of security police units as an MOS that would have worked on the perimeters. It was also noted that there were no records to show that the same tactical herbicides used in Vietnam were used in Thailand. VA's Adjudication Procedures Manual Rewrite requires special consideration of herbicide exposure on a factual basis for veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thai military bases during the Vietnam era, to specifically include U-Tapao RTAFB. See M21-1MR at IV.ii.2.C.10.q. Specifically, those protocols direct that, if a Veteran served as an Air Force security policeman, security patrol dog handler, or member of the security police squadron, or was otherwise near the air base perimeter as shown by evidence of daily work duties, performance evaluation reports, or other credible evidence, herbicide exposure should be acknowledged. Id. The VA has a duty to assist the Veteran in obtaining records in the custody of a federal agency until such a search becomes futile. See, e.g., 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The Veteran did not initially respond to the request for additional information to assist in locating any such records, so VA issued a January 2016 Formal Finding of Insufficient Evidence to Concede Exposure to Herbicides. The Veteran has subsequently provided additional details regarding his allegations. However, for reasons set forth below, the Board finds the evidence already is at least in equipoise regarding exposure to herbicide agents, so no further efforts to assist the Veteran with respect to that issue are necessary. The Veteran contends that, as a Squadron Instrument System Repairman during his deployment to Thailand, his duties required him to work in areas of the RTAF base that had been sprayed by herbicides and also to work on and near aircraft that had been exposed to or may have transported herbicide agents. See January 2021 Board Hearing Tr. at 4-6 (discussing duties and possible exposures while in Thailand including flying missions over Cambodia). The Veteran's military personnel records lend support to his detailed and credible descriptions of his duties. The record does not include performance appraisals from his time in Thailand, but his Performance Report for the reporting period of April 1972 to April 1973 documented his duties working on C-130 aircraft and conducting repairs of the instruments and electronic components of the aircraft. See April 1973 Performance Report. The performance appraisals indicate a highly motivated non-commissioned officer who was willing and able to do whatever it took, wherever required, to achieve mission objectives. See, e.g., April 1973 Performance Report ("The manner in which [the Veteran’s] performance both on and off duty is exemplary and outstandingly proficient in every way. His positive, assertive attitude has done much to convey the image of ‘one who gets the job done.’ [The Veteran] has demonstrated the ability to assume ever greater responsibilities."). The Veteran's outstanding performance reports are consistent with his own descriptions of his duties and suggest to the Board a professional willing to offer his exceptional skills anytime and anywhere, such as on the perimeter of U-Tapao AFB. While the Veteran’s assertions have often focused more on the possibility of working in potentially contaminated aircraft (e.g., providing supplies via airdrop and “assault land” in which the plane would quickly take off after landing and unloading cargo), he also alluded to working near the base perimeter. The Board finds his assertions credible and supported by contemporaneous military records. The weight of the evidence, which includes evidence of daily work duties, performance evaluation reports, or other credible evidence, is in equipoise regarding whether his duties frequently took him near the perimeter of U-Tapao RTAFB as needed. See M21-1MR at IV.ii.2.C.10.q. Consequently, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran was likely exposed to herbicide agents during his exemplary service in Thailand during the Vietnam era. Id. The VA system is "veteran-friendly" and "non-adversarial." Evans v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 7, 14 (2011). Therefore, "when, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin...or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant." 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Applying these standards to each factual, medical and legal issue, the Board finds that the evidence establishes that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide during his active service and that his exposure to herbicide agents caused or contributed to his later development of Parkinson’s disease. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The evidence is at least in equipoise on each of the factual issues with respect to the claim at issue; consequently, application of the benefit of the doubt doctrine requires the doubt be resolved in the Veteran's favor. Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 53-56. The Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease is granted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.307, and 3.309(e). MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Kerry Hubers 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.