Citation Nr: 21012323 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 15-08 760 DATE: March 4, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Affording the Veteran the benefit of reasonable doubt, his type II diabetes mellitus is presumed to be related to herbicide exposure at Royal Thai Air Force Base in U-Tapao, Thailand while on active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1971 to October 1974 and from October 1980 to November 1984. This issue comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously remanded by the Board for development in January 2019 and September 2020 and has been returned for appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is granted. The Veteran contends that he has type II diabetes mellitus as a result of exposure to herbicides while serving at U-Tapao and Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Bases (RTAFBs) in Thailand. See July 2012 VA Form 21-4138. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131. Generally, service connection requires (1) the existence of a present disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). VA has determined that certain diseases, including type II diabetes are deemed associated with herbicide exposure. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(e). Such identified diseases shall be service connected if a Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, subject to the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6), even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). VA has also determined that U.S. Air Force Veterans who served on RTAFBs at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang, near the air base perimeter anytime between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975, may have been exposed to herbicides. To benefit from a presumption of herbicide exposure at one of the previously mentioned air bases, a Veteran must have served as a security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by military occupational specialty, performance evaluation, or other credible evidence. Special consideration of herbicide exposure on a facts-found or direct basis should be extended to those veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. At the outset, the Veteran’s post-service medical records reflect that he has been diagnosed with type II diabetes mellitus, which is among the conditions associated with exposure to herbicide agents under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Thus, the relevant question is whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicides during his active duty service. In this regard, the Veteran’s service personnel records include August 1973, April 1974, and September 1974 performance reports, which indicate the Veteran was assigned to the 635th Service Squadron, located at U-Tapao Air Field (Afld) from November 1972 to August 1973, from August 1973 to March 1974, and from April 1974 to September 1974. His duties as a senior cook included supervising preparation, cooking, seasoning, quality, and quantity of all food items and supervising operation and maintenance of equipment. In a July 2012 statement in support of claim, the Veteran reported that while he was in Thailand he was exposed to tactical herbicides that were used on U-Tapao Air Force Base and Takhli Air Force Base in Thailand while he was working on the perimeter, performing tasks including cleaning. In a February 2015 statement in support of claim, the Veteran reported that while he was on temporary duty orders to Takhli RTAFB in April 1972 for “Operation Constant Guard”, an incident occurred that involved broken plumbing fixtures and no hot water or drinking water. He was quarantined in tents and setup in a field kitchen next to the flight line where Agent Orange was sprayed to kill the weeds. Although there is no record of assignment specifically to perimeter duty at U-Tapao RTAFB, the Board finds the Veteran’s assertions regarding time spent near the perimeter of the base at U-Tapao RTAFB to be both competent and credible. As there is no basis on which to question the credibility of the Veteran’s reports of being assigned to cleaning duties near the base perimeter while at U-Tapao RTAFB and no evidence in the record to contradict his claims of perimeter contact, the Board finds that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while he was stationed at U-Tapao RTAFB during the Vietnam era. Further, although there is no record of temporary duty orders from U-Tapao RTAFB to Takhli RTAFB, the record supports that the Veteran was at U-Tapao RTAFB in 1972 and his military personnel records support his statements that his duties as a cook brought him to the field near the flight line where he had to set up a field kitchen, which bolsters the credibility of the historical timeline provided in his lay testimony. Affording the Veteran the benefit of any reasonable doubt, the Board finds that he was exposed to herbicides while serving in Thailand and that his type II diabetes mellitus can be presumed to be related to herbicide exposure in service. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). Service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is granted. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Schick, 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.