Citation Nr: 21021789 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 18-28 306A DATE: April 14, 2021 ORDER The issue of entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran served in Thailand during the Vietnam era and the evidence is at least in equipoise that he was exposed to herbicide agents in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1966 to March 1978, in the United States Air Force. In April 2021, the Veteran testified under oath before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer. The Board finds that the Veteran meets the criteria for service connection. First, the Veteran’s VA treatment records show a diagnosis for prostate cancer. See CAPRI, February 2016 (positive biopsy). Second, the Veteran contends that his prostate cancer is related to exposure to Agent Orange while serving in Thailand. See VA Form 9, June 2018. If a Veteran were exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, certain diseases, including prostate cancer, shall be service-connected if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6) are met, even though there is no record of the disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e). The Veteran’s service treatment records indicate service at Nakhon Phanom RTAFB, Thailand. See STR, July 1972. Claims involving alleged exposure at such an installation are to be analyzed under the appropriate administrative guidelines given the absence of pertinent statutory and regulatory provisions. See Ennis v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 523 (1993); McGinty v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 428 (1993). According to these guidelines, exposure will be conceded for certain Air Force veterans who served on RTAFBs during the Vietnam era in duties that placed them near the airbase perimeter. Such veterans include those who served at Nakhon Phanom RTAFB. The Board finds that the Veteran has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his service placed him near the airbase perimeter. At the April 2021 hearing, the Veteran indicated that he was frequently called to the flight line to inspect and repack parachutes, and that such activities placed him near the perimeter. See also, VA Form 9, June 2018. The Veteran’s DD 214, which shows service from March 1970 to March 1974, supports the Veteran’s description of his duties, as it indicates that his primary specialty was Parachute Rigger Supervisor. The Veteran also described walking in and out of the main gate of the base on a daily basis. Id. The Veteran’s statements are consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service. The Veteran is competent to make statements as to his military service and history, and the Board finds the Veteran’s lay statements to be credible and of probative value. The Board acknowledges the response from the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS), received in December 2016. Although the DPRIS response indicates a lack of documentation regarding herbicide use and exposure, the Board notes that this absence of evidence is not negative evidence weighing against the Veteran’s claim. In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether instead, a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit-of-the doubt is afforded to the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Here, the Board finds that evidence is in relative equipoise and affords the Veteran the benefit-of-the doubt that he was exposed to herbicides in service. The evidence shows that the Veteran served in the United States Air Force during the Vietnam Era at Nakhon Phanom RTAFB, Thailand. He has competently and credibly described service near the perimeter. Accordingly, the Board gives the benefit-of-the-doubt to the Veteran. As the Veteran meets the criteria for service-connection, the issue is granted. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Foster, 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.