Citation Nr: 21040934 Decision Date: 07/07/21 Archive Date: 07/07/21 DOCKET NO. 19-38 177 DATE: July 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy, right leg, to include as due to exposure to herbicide is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy, left leg, to include as due to exposure to herbicide is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from August 1962 to September 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2018 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran attended a Board videoconference hearing in May 2021 with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy, right leg, to include as due to exposure to herbicide 2. Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy, left leg, to include as due to exposure to herbicide The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for right and left leg neuropathy as due to exposure to Agent Orange while serving in Thailand between November 1966 and December 1967. VA has determined that there was use of herbicides on or near the perimeters of military bases in Thailand intended to eliminate vegetation and ground cover for base security purposes. See https://www.publichealth.va.gov/ exposures/agentorange/locations/thailand.asp. If a veteran served in the U.S. Air Force in Thailand during the Vietnam era, and provided perimeter security on Royal Thai Air Force Bases (RTAFB) at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat or Don Muang, or who were stationed on small Army installations as a member of the military police (MP), security patrol dog handler, member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by MOS (military occupational specialty), performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, herbicide exposure should be conceded on a facts found or direct basis. The Veteran reports that when he first arrived in Thailand, the base was under construction and he lived in tents in "the jungle" for about six months until the construction of the barracks was completed. See March 2020 correspondence. A July 2019 deferred rating decision contains instructions "to request verification from JSRRC" because of the Veteran's contentions that U-Tapao was under construction at his arrival. The deferred rating stated that "B-52's arrived at U-Tapao Thailand on or about April 10, 1967 while the [V]eteran was stationed there," and instructed the JSRRC to obtain information for a "60 day period prior to their arrival." An October 2019 printout from the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System ("DPRIS") states that, "JSRRC reviewed a copy of U.S. Air Force Historical Research Agency memorandum for the Department of Veterans Affairs dated August 11, 2015. The memorandum pertains to the USAF installations operating in Thailand from 1963 through 1976. These installations were located on the following Royal Thai Air Force Bases: U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang. The memorandum concludes '...no documentation or evidence has been found in the holdings of the Historical Research Agency showing that tactical herbicides, such as Agent Orange, were ever used on any USAF installation in Thailand for vegetation control during the Vietnam era." The Board acknowledges that the Joint Services Record Research Center (JSRRC) no longer exists. The Board finds the July 2019 DPRIS report to be inconsistent with other current VA guidance. As noted above, the current practice of VA's Compensation Service is to extend special consideration of herbicide exposure on a factual basis to those Veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeter of Thailand military bases during the Vietnam era. Accordingly, further development is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Verify the Veteran's possible exposure to herbicides while the Veteran served at U-Tapao Thailand from November 1966 and December 1967. Note the Veteran's military occupational specialty was a jet engine mechanic. Consider the Veteran's contention that when he first arrived in Thailand, the base was under construction and he lived in tents in "the jungle" for about six months until the construction of the barracks was completed. 2. Contact the Air Force Historical Research Agency and determine the nature of the Veteran's daily duties in his MOS with the 4258th Maintenance Squadron stationed at U-Tapao Royal Thai Navy Airfield (RTNAF) in Thailand from November 1966 and December 1967. Then, after completing this research, and any additional development deemed necessary, please indicate whether it is as least likely as not that the jet engine mechanics' duties would have put the Veteran near the perimeter of the base where his duties would likely result in physical contact with herbicide or its residue. 3. If the AOJ determines that any other sources should be contacted in order to obtain information that may assist in substantiating the Veteran's claims of herbicide exposure, an appropriate information request to such sources should be made. All requests and responses received from each contacted entity should be associated with the claims file. If the requested records are unavailable, a formal finding of unavailability should be prepared and associated with the claims file. 4. After completing the development requested above, and any other development deemed necessary, to include obtaining a VA examination and opinion, readjudicate the Veteran's claim. If any of the benefits sought are not granted in full, the AOJ should furnish the Veteran and his representative with an SSOC and afford an opportunity to respond. The claims file should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Fitzgerald, 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.