Citation Nr: 21013058 Decision Date: 03/08/21 Archive Date: 03/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-01 705 DATE: March 8, 2021 ORDER Service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is granted. REMANDED Service connection for benign prostate hypertrophy (BPH) is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s type II diabetes mellitus is related to herbicide agent exposure in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for type II diabetes mellitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Air Force from June 1966 to September 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing in January 2021. Service connection for type II diabetes mellitus Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (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). The Veteran contends that he has diabetes as a result of exposure to herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, during service. VA treatment records show that he is currently diagnosed with diabetes, and under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), diabetes is presumed to be associated with herbicide agent exposure. The pertinent question is whether the Veteran had such exposure. He asserts that he was exposed as a result of his proximity to the perimeter of the base he served at in Thailand. VA determined that veterans who served at certain Royal Thai Air Force Bases (RTAFBs) in Thailand should be extended special consideration based on evidence of the use of herbicide agents around the perimeters of certain bases. Herbicide agent exposure may be conceded for security police, security patrol dog handlers, members of the security police squadron, and those who were “otherwise near the air base perimeter as shown by evidence of daily work duties, performance evaluation reports, or other credible evidence.” The Veteran testified at a May 2019 regional office hearing, and again during his January 2021 Board hearing, that he served at Nakhon Phanom RTAFB, one of the qualifying bases. This is corroborated by his service personnel records. However, he did not serve in one of the aforementioned security roles. Rather, he testified that he worked on a taxiway about 40 feet from the base perimeter, where his job was to arm and de-arm incoming aircraft. He stated that he typically worked 12-hour shifts at night, but only serviced about 10 to 12 planes during that time. During the remainder of his shift, “there was nothing to do but wonder around in the dark,” including walking right up to the base’s perimeter fence. He submitted a map of the base to supplement his testimony. The Board finds the Veteran’s testimony regarding his proximity to the base perimeter to be credible, and therefore his exposure to herbicide agents is established. Based on that exposure, service connection for his diabetes is appropriate. REASONS FOR REMAND Service connection for BPH VA treatment records show the Veteran is currently diagnosed with BPH, which is not among the disabilities presumptively associated with herbicide agent exposure. However, service treatment records from June 1971 and July 1971 reference a swollen prostate and a diagnosis of prostatitis. To date, no VA examiner has opined whether the current disability is etiologically related to this in-service incurrence.. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his benign prostate hypertrophy. The examiner must review the claims file. If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran’s condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a “disability” for the purpose of providing the requested opinion(s) below. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s benign prostate hypertrophy is at least as likely as not related to service, including prostatitis diagnosed and treated in June 1971 and July 1971. Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s). JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Shamil Patel, 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.