Citation Nr: 21021868 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 20-16 891 DATE: April 14, 2021 ORDER Service connection for prostate cancer is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s military personnel records and corroborating lay statements are credible evidence that he was exposed to herbicide agents while serving in Thailand. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for presumptive service connection for prostate cancer have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.307, 3.309 (e). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran honorably served from July 1965 to September 1991 in the Air Force, including service during the Vietnam and Gulf War Eras. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2018 rating decision. Service connection for prostate cancer The Veteran contends entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents during his service in Thailand. The medical treatment records reflect a prostate cancer diagnosis. Therefore, the question for the Board is whether his prostate cancer began during service or is otherwise related to service, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure. If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service, the diseases set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e), including prostate cancer, will be presumed to be related to such service if they become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, with an exception not applicable to this case. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(ii). VA has not established a presumption of herbicide agent exposure in Thailand, but VA has created special rules for veterans who served on several Royal Thai Air Force Bases (RTAFBs) during the Vietnam era. Specifically, herbicide agent exposure may be shown if the Veteran’s duties regularly placed him at the perimeter of the base. Examples of such duties are security policeman, security patrol dog handler, a member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by MOS, performance evaluations, or other credible evidence. The Veteran’s military personnel records demonstrate service in Thailand at RTAFB U-Tapao from February 1973 to February 1974. The Veteran’s MOS during this period of service was Aircraft Mechanic. In an October 2018 statement, the Veteran explained in detail his contact with the perimeter of RTAFB U-Tapao during his active duty service. He stated the following, “My responsibility was to maintain a supply of serviceable wheel & Tire assemblies for the base assigned B-52 and the KC-135 aircraft. The 3-52 aircraft were parked in a secure area near the base perimeter. The perimeter fencing along this road was known to have been treated with Agent Orange. To perform my duties, I towed serviceable wheel and tire assemblies with a Tug Tractor to this area to remove and replace damaged tires on B-52s. This required me to travel this road as many as five to six times per week, six to ten times per day, often spending that much time or more working on aircraft in this area. Because of the time it took to tow tires from the Tire Shop to the 3-52 parking area it was decided to stage a set of sixteen unprotected tires in this area. This would require a visual inspection and a tire pressure check after each twelve-hour shift. That would mean more time spent in a CONTAMINATED area.” The Veteran communicated further that he lived in the barracks right across the road from a perimeter fence where foliage had been sprayed with Agent Orange. The Board finds the Veteran’s statements credible and has determined that herbicide exposure should be acknowledged in this case on a facts-found basis. Accordingly, service connection for prostate cancer is warranted on a presumptive basis due to the Veteran’s conceded exposure to herbicide agents while stationed in Thailand. The claim is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(e). Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Kyle McKone 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.