Citation Nr: 21023822 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-24 824A DATE: April 21, 2021 ORDER Service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran died on February [REDACTED], 2015; the cause of death was carcinomatosis and pancreatic cancer. 2. At the time of his death, the Veteran was service-connected for the following disabilities; residuals of exploratory laparotomy, a left shoulder injury, degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine, bilateral hearing loss, degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine, tinnitus, hairline fracture of the great toe and fracture of the left small finger, scars of exploratory laparotomy, and hiatal hernia. 3. At the time of his death, the Veteran was not service connected for pancreatic cancer or any other type of cancer. 4. The weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s death is related to his military service, or his service-connected disabilities. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1116, 1310; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.312 REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1956 to June 1976. He died in February 2015. The appellant is his surviving spouse. The Board notes that the appellant requested a videoconference hearing. See VA Form 9 dated June 27, 2016. However, a November 2019 Hearing worksheet shows that the scheduled hearing was cancelled. As such, the Board will proceed with adjudication and will provide the appellant a decision on her appeal. Cause of Death The appellant asserts that the Veteran’s death was related to his exposure to tactical herbicide agents during his active duty service. She asserts that his diagnoses of coronary artery disease and pancreatic cancer shows that he was exposed to such herbicide agents. To establish service connection for the cause of a Veteran’s death, the evidence must show that a disability incurred in or aggravated by active service either caused or contributed substantially or materially to cause death. 38 U.S.C. § 1310. A service-connected disorder is one that was incurred in or aggravated by active service; one for which there exists a refutable presumption of service incurrence, or one that is proximately due to or the result of, or aggravated by, a service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309, 3.310 (a). A service-connected disability will be considered as the primary cause of death when such disability, singly or jointly with some other disorder, was the immediate or underlying cause of death or was etiologically related to the cause of death. A contributory cause of death is inherently one not related to the primary cause. In determining whether the service-connected disability contributed to death, it must be shown that it contributed substantially or materially, that it combined to cause death, or that it aided or lent assistance to the production of death. It is not sufficient to show that it casually shared in producing death, but rather it must be shown that there was a causal connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.312. Here, the Veteran’s death certificate stated that he died of carcinomatosis and pancreatic cancer. However, to service connect the cause of the Veteran’s death, it requires a showing that the carcinomatosis and/or pancreatic cancer was linked to his time in the military; or a showing that one of his service-connected disabilities met the criteria to be considered a contributing factor of his death. The evidence fails in both regards. A veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam War is presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(iii). Service in the Republic of Vietnam means actual service in-country in Vietnam from January 9, 1962 through May 7, 1975, and includes service in the waters offshore, or service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(iii) (2018). Here, the appellant has not asserted that the Veteran served in Vietnam, instead the evidence shows that he had service at Ubon RTAFB, Thailand. VA has adopted a procedure for verifying exposure to herbicides in Thailand during the Vietnam era. VA has determined that there was significant use of herbicides on the fenced-in perimeters of military bases in Thailand. The herbicide use was intended to eliminate vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes. VA has acknowledged that the herbicides used on the Thailand base perimeters may have been tactical or a commercial variant of much greater strength and with the characteristics of tactical herbicides. Special consideration of herbicide exposure on a facts-found or direct basis should be extended to those veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand military bases. This allows for presumptive service connection of the diseases associated with herbicide exposure. The majority of troops in Thailand during the Vietnam era were stationed at the Royal Thai Air Force Bases of U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang. If a veteran served on one of these air bases as a security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by MOS, performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, then herbicide exposure should be acknowledged on a facts-found or direct basis. These provisions apply only during the Vietnam era. Here, the Board concedes that the Veteran had service at Ubon RTAFB during the Vietnam era. However, the Veteran’s MOS as a jet engine mechanic is not one of the enumerated jobs that regularly placed servicemembers near the air base perimeter. Further, there has been no assertion that the Veteran had duties or any other reason to be near the air base perimeter. The January 2017 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) also explained that the Veteran’s personnel records do not indicate that he worked on or near the perimeter of the military base. The Board notes that prior to the Veteran’s passing, he submitted a statement in October 2014 that he was stationed in Ubon and worked on the runway, as a jet engine mechanic. He also stated that it was a new base without facilities, which meant the water used for bathing and drinking was from water buffaloes (tanker), which came from local water resources. He reported that he ate, slept, and worked in contaminated areas and knows he was exposed to Agent Orange. Ultimately, the Board does not need to determine whether the Veteran was entitled to the presumption of herbicide exposure, as pancreatic cancer is not a disease that has been presumptively linked to herbicide exposure, and there is no medical evidence which suggests that the Veteran’s pancreatic cancer was the result of herbicide exposure. To the extent, that the Veteran asserted that he believed he had exposure through consumption of contaminated water, the Veteran is not shown to have had the medical expertise for such an opinion. Regarding direct service connection, there is no objective evidence of record that links the Veteran’s cause of death to his active service. His service treatment records (STRs) do not show treatment or a diagnosis of any type of cancer during his service. Furthermore, the Veteran had normal in-service examinations throughout his military career, which contained no evidence of cancer. Medical records after his service do not show that the Veteran was diagnosed with any type of cancer within a year of separation. The first indication that he was diagnosed with cancer was in October 2013, when he applied for service connection for pancreatic cancer. As described, the record contains no diagnosis of pancreatic cancer either in service or within one year after service, which would preclude service connection on the basis of continuity of symptomatology or on any other presumptive basis. The appellant has not argued to the contrary. There is also no competent medical evidence linking the Veteran’s pancreatic cancer to his active service or as secondary to any of his service-connected disabilities, and the appellant has not submitted any medical opinions that suggests a relationship between his pancreatic cancer and either his active service or any of his service-connected disabilities. See Shedden, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167. The Board would like to express that it is extremely sympathetic toward the appellant’s claim and is deeply appreciative of the Veteran’s long and dedicated military career. Unfortunately, the weight of the evidence is against the claim that the Veteran’s pancreatic cancer was due to exposure to herbicide agents, or is otherwise related to his active duty service. (Continued on the next page)   Here, there is no basis for service connection on a direct or presumptive basis. Accordingly, service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death from pancreatic cancer is denied. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Fu, 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.