Citation Nr: 21023642 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-09 198 DATE: April 21, 2021 ORDER Service connection for left ear hearing loss is granted. Service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Left ear hearing loss was shown as chronic in service and is not attributable to intercurrent causes. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that diabetes mellitus began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease, including alleged herbicide agent exposure. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for type II diabetes mellitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Air Force from November 1971 to December 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision. It was previously remanded in December 2018 for additional development. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing in June 2017 before a Veterans Law Judge who is no longer at the Board. In January 2021, he was notified of this fact and afforded the opportunity to testify at another hearing. However, he did not respond to this notice and therefore the Board will proceed in adjudicating his appeal. Service Connection 1. Left ear hearing loss Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service, with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Veteran has a current diagnosis of sensorineural hearing loss as evidenced by an August 2013 VA examination. Sensorineural hearing loss, as an organic disease of the nervous system, is an enumerated chronic condition under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); Walker, 708 F.3d 1331. Service treatment records dated September 1974 show that the Veteran was found to have “considerable” hearing loss in both ears. While the etiology was questionable, the treating physician stated it was “probably” sensorineural. The Board will resolve any doubts in the Veteran’s favor in finding that he had left ear sensorineural hearing loss during service. For chronic conditions, any subsequent manifestations are service-connected unless attributable to intercurrent causes. No intercurrent causes have been shown in this case and therefore the Veteran’s left ear hearing loss is attributable to service. 2. Diabetes mellitus The Veteran contends that he has diabetes because of exposure to herbicide agents during service. VA regulations stated that diabetes is presumed to be associated with herbicide agents, and therefore the pertinent question is whether such exposure occurred. The Veteran asserts that such exposure occurred in Thailand. There are no regulations which presume herbicide agent exposure for veterans who served in Thailand. However, VA has adopted a procedure for verifying exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand during the Vietnam Era. The first step is determining whether the Veteran served at one of the qualifying Royal Thai Air Force Bases (AFBs), and served as an Air Force security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of the security police squadron, or was otherwise near the air base perimeter as shown by evidence of daily work duties, performance evaluation reports, or other credible evidence. In this case, the Veteran served at Ubon, which is one of the qualifying Royal Thai AFBs. However, he did not service in any of the aforementioned duty positions. His Form DD-214 and service personnel records show he was an aerospace ground equipment repairman. These records, including performance evaluations generated during service, show that he performed tasks associated with being an equipment repairman, but do not reflect that his duties involved work near the base perimeter. The third step requires VA to ask the Veteran for the approximate dates, location, and nature of his alleged herbicide agent exposure. The fourth step is to determine whether the Veteran provided the requested information within 30 days. The fifth and sixth steps require VA to review the information to determine if herbicide agent exposure can be established on a facts-found basis. The seventh step requires VA to forward the case to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for either verification of the alleged herbicide agent exposure, or a formal finding that sufficient information to verify herbicide agent exposure does not exist. In this case, the evidence of record includes assertions by the Veteran that he entered and exited every day, which required crossing the perimeter. He also testified that he tested repaired bomb lift carts by driving them to the end of the flight line, which was near the base perimeter. However, inquiries through the JSRRC in April 2019 and Air Force Historical Agency in July 2020 did not establish this Veteran’s exposure to herbicide agents or the base perimeter. Having reviewed the evidence, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted because herbicide agent exposure has not been established. While the Veteran reported being on a qualifying Thailand AFB base perimeter, the verification procedure for herbicide agent exposure in Thailand only concedes exposure for specific personnel whose duties placed them on or near the perimeter as discussed above. A review of the Veteran’s service records, including his performance evaluations which document his duties in service, do not reference any activity along the base perimeter, and the Board finds that the Veteran’s statements to that effect are not persuasive. Because the record does not reflect any other basis upon which diabetes could be related to service, service connection for diabetes is not warranted. 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.