Citation Nr: 21031959 Decision Date: 05/25/21 Archive Date: 05/25/21 DOCKET NO. 18-12 268 DATE: May 25, 2021 ORDER Service connection for prostate cancer is granted. Service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served at the Royal Thai Air Force Base in Ubon, Thailand, during the Vietnam era and provided competent and credible evidence of serving near the air base perimeter; therefore, his exposure to herbicide agents has been established. 2. The Veteran was shown to have had prostate cancer and Type II diabetes mellitus during the appeal period; these are disabilities presumed to be associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer due to herbicide agents exposure are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus due to herbicide agents exposure are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from July 1967 to July 1971. He died in April 2020. The appellant is his surviving spouse. Regarding the claims for service connection, the Veteran filed these claims in May 2017, prior to his death. These claims were still pending at the time of the Veteran's death; in June 2020, the Regional Office substituted the appellant as the Veteran's claimant in this matter after she requested substitution earlier that month. The appellant testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned in May 2021. Service Connection The Veteran's post-service treatment records show that he was diagnosed with Type II diabetes mellitus in December 2001 and prostate cancer in April 2017. He continued to be treated for these disabilities until his death in April 2020. The appellant contends that this prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus were caused by the Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents in service. The law provides that, if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during service, certain listed diseases shall be service-connected if the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) are met, even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1113; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied. The list of diseases afforded this presumption includes prostate cancer and Type II diabetes mellitus. Consequently, the herbicide agent exposure presumptive provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1116 apply to the claims for service connection for prostate cancer Type II diabetes mellitus, and the question to be resolved in this case is whether the Veteran had exposure to herbicide agents in service. The Veteran did not contend that he served on board a ship, or on land in the Republic of Vietnam. Instead, he asserted he was exposed to herbicide agents while serving in Thailand. Specifically, he stated that he was stationed Ubon and then sent TDY (temporary duty) to U-Tapao for six months. He served as an aircraft maintenance specialist and also performed base perimeter guard duty. As crew chief, he frequented the runways, taxiways and perimeter to look for foreign object damage. He also reported that planes were parked between the bunkers near the base perimeter. The Veteran said he witnessed the spraying of defoliant on many occasions. He stated that he was also sent TDY to U-Tapao for six months, lived off base, and traveled through the main (perimeter) gate daily. See November 2017 Statement in Support of Claim, December 2017 Notice of Disagreement, and February 2018 VA Form 9, substantive appeal. The Veteran's service personnel records confirm he served as an aircraft maintenance specialist in Ubon, Thailand, from November 1968 to December 1969. He was an assistant crew chief from August 1969 to March 1970. VA has established a procedure for verifying exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand during the Vietnam era. Special consideration of herbicide agent exposure on a facts-found or direct basis is 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 agent exposure. Specifically, if a veteran served in the United States Air Force during the Vietnam Era at one of the specified Royal Thai Air Force Bases (AFBs), including Ubon, as an Air Force security policeman, a security patrol dog handler, a member of the security police squadron, or in a capacity that otherwise placed them near the air base perimeter as shown by the evidence of record, then herbicide agents exposure is to be conceded. See Parseeya-Picchione v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 171, 176 (2016). The Veteran's military occupational specialty was as an aircraft mechanic/assistant crew chief. The Board acknowledges the Veteran did not serve in a position which VA has conceded as being exposed to herbicide agents on a Royal Thai Air Force Base. He was not an Air Force security policeman, a security patrol dog handler, a member of the security police squadron, or in another capacity that otherwise placed them near the air base perimeter. However, the Veteran's competent lay statements, supported by military personnel records, provide credible evidence of his duties that were close enough to the perimeter to have been sprayed and that he witnessed spraying on base. Notably, there is no evidence in the record that contradicts the Veteran's accounts. Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the Veteran did come in contact with some form of an herbicide agent or its residue. Therefore, the Board finds that the criteria for presumption of exposure to herbicide agents during the Veteran's active service in Thailand have been met. Service connection for prostate cancer and Type II diabetes mellitus secondary to herbicide agents exposure is warranted. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Fletcher, Kathleen 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.