Citation Nr: 21014934 Decision Date: 03/16/21 Archive Date: 03/16/21 DOCKET NO. 17-02 000 DATE: March 16, 2021 ORDERI Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is granted. FINDING OF FACT There is credible evidence that the Veteran’s daily activities and work duties as a communications center specialist involved service near the perimeter of the Don Muang Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) such that he was exposed to herbicide agents. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.6, 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1965 to February 1969, including service at the Don Muang RTAFB in Thailand from August 20, 1967 to February 4, 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2019, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim, concluding evidence weighed against finding the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent in service. The Veteran appealed the Board’s denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). By way of an October 2020 order, the Clerk of the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), which vacated the Board’s denial and remanded the matter for adjudication consistent with its terms, including proper consideration of competent and credible evidence that the Veteran worked and lived near the perimeter of the Don Muang RTAFB indicating he was exposed to herbicide agents. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is granted. The Veteran contends his diabetes is due to herbicide agent exposure while stationed at Don Muang RTAFB from August 1967 to February 1969. The Board finds service connection is warranted. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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). In order to establish presumptive service connection for a disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents, the evidence must show the following: (1) that the veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975 (or was otherwise exposed to an herbicide agent during active service); (2) that he currently suffers from a disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e); and (3) that the current disease process manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more within the specified time period prescribed in section 3.307(a)(6)(ii). 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 (a)(6), 3.309(e). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, the certain diseases shall be service connected, if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a) are met, even if there is no record of such disease during service. The list of diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents includes Type 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes). 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e). Although statutory and regulatory provisions do not establish a presumption of exposure to herbicide agents based on service in Thailand, per information from the Department of Defense, VA recognizes that herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, were used at certain times and places at some military bases in Thailand during the Vietnam Era between January 1962 and May 1975. Current VA policy provides for special consideration of herbicide agent exposure for veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of certain designated Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand (RTAFBs) during the Vietnam Era. Specifically, if a Veteran served in the U.S. Air Force in Thailand during the Vietnam era at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, or Don Muang RTAB as an Air Force security policeman, security patrol dog handler, or member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near a base perimeter, as shown by the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS), daily work duties, performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, then herbicide agent exposure should be conceded on a facts-found or direct basis. See U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Aff., Compensation and Pension Service Bulletin 3 (May 2010). The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for diabetes or onset of diabetes. The Veteran’s September 1965 entrance report of medical examination and January 1969 separation report of medical examination are also silent for any diagnoses of symptoms of diabetes. Notably, the Veteran does not contend his diabetes had its onset during service. However, military personnel records reflect his MOS was as a Communication Center Specialist and that he arrived at Don Muang RTAFB in August 1967. Moreover, private medical records from February 2007 show indicate the Veteran was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 1992. The question for the Board is whether there is competent and credible evidence of whether the Veteran’s daily activities and/or work duties placed him in proximity to the base perimeter at Don Muang RTAFB such that he may be presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents. The Board finds there is. Initially, the Board notes in November 2016, the RO issued a formal finding that VA lacks information required to verify herbicide exposure in Thailand. However, in a May 2013 statement, the Veteran asserted that the communications compound in which he worked at the Don Muang RTAFB was at the northeast perimeter of the base. Attached to this statement, the Veteran supplied aerial photos confirming that the communications facility at the Don Muang RTAFB was in the northeast perimeter, abutting the northeast perimeter road. He also reported while waiting for a top-secret security clearance, he was asked to cut grass around the perimeter of the communications compound. In an August 2014 statement, his wife stated the Veteran sent her letters about his assigned duties during service, which included cutting grass near the communications facility while waiting for his security clearance to be updated. In an October 2014 statement, the Veteran’s former commander at the Don Muang RTAFB (W.W.) reported that new airmen with top security clearance must have that clearance updated upon arriving at a new duty station, that each airman would perform various duties while awaiting their security clearance, such as cutting grass and weed control in the compound and around its perimeter, and that it was “highly probably” that the Veteran was assigned to the perimeter to cut grass. The Veteran’s personnel records indicate that in addition to communications duties, he would perform other duties as directed by his supervisor. In an April 2015 notice of disagreement, the Veteran again asserted that he lived and worked near the perimeter of the Don Muang RTAFB. After reviewing the record, and resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds the Veteran’s daily activities and job duties placed him near the perimeter of the Don Muang RTAFB such that he was at least as likely as not exposed to herbicide agents during service. Notably, veterans are competent to report information within the realm of their personal knowledge, including proximity to the perimeter of a base. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). The Board accepts as credible, the Veteran’s statements as to the nature and responsibilities of his service while at Don Muang RTAFB. His personnel records confirm he was stationed at Don Muang RTAFB and worked as a communications center specialist. Indeed, the aerial view of the base supplied by the Veteran shows the communications center in which he worked was located near the base perimeter and abutted the northeast perimeter road. Statements from his wife and base commander are consistent with other evidence of record. As such, the Board finds it reasonable to infer that the Veteran worked near the base perimeter while at the Don Muang RTAFB. Because this RTAFB is one of the facilities where herbicide agents were sprayed in Thailand, the Veteran’s in-service herbicide exposure is acknowledged on a facts-found basis. Finally, again, evidence shows the Veteran was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 1992, and subsequent treatment records confirm a current diagnosis. As indicated above, type 2 diabetes is one of the diseases recognized as being associated with herbicide agent exposure. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e). Accordingly, after resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds service connection for diabetes mellitus, type 2 is warranted. D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P.A. Infante, 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.