Citation Nr: 21042340 Decision Date: 07/12/21 Archive Date: 07/12/21 DOCKET NO. 18-25 432 DATE: July 12, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for ischemic heart disease is remanded. Service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1966 to December 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A Board decision in July 2019 denied the Veteran's claims. The Veteran thereafter appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an Order and Memorandum Decision (MemDec) dated in December 2020, the Court vacated the Board's decision and remanded the case for readjudication in accordance with the MemDec. 1. Service connection for ischemic heart disease is remanded. 2. Service connection for prostate cancer is remanded. The Board remands the case to comply with the December 2020 MemDec. As noted in the July 2019 Board decision, the Veteran asserts that he was exposed to herbicide agents from contact with C-123 and C-141 aircraft while serving at Clark Air Force Base (AFB). See the Veteran's statement dated May 2018. He explained that, as part of his duties, he maintained all types of contaminated aircraft used in Operation Ranch Hand while stationed at Clark AFB. The Veteran's service personnel records confirm that, while stationed at Clark AFB, his Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) were 4313 and 4315, which indicate that he served as an aircraft maintenance specialist. Personnel records show that the Veteran was assigned to the 604th Military Airlift Support Squadron (MASS) while stationed at Clark AFB. His assigned unit of 604th MASS does not fall into the specifically identified units currently identified by the VA as a recognized unit for presumptive exposure to herbicide agents. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(v). The MemDec noted that the Veteran does not dispute the presumption regarding exposure to C-123 aircraft is not applicable here. Rather, the Court found that the Board failed to adequately address whether he had actual exposure. Specifically, the Court found that the Board did not make findings as to VA's duty to assist and whether the Veteran's reports were sufficient to trigger VA's duty to search for additional records, such as unit records that may confirm exposure. The Court noted that, although the Board found the Veteran not competent to state that he was exposed to herbicides, he is competent to state that he worked on C-123 aircraft and with other units, and that the Board did not find that he lacked credibility as to these issues. The Board finds that the duty to assist is triggered by the Veteran's statements, in light of the MemDec. Accordingly, remand is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to verify the Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents on a direct basis. Specifically, attempt to verify, including via one or more requests to the Joint Services Records Research Center, the following: (a.) Whether the Veteran worked on any C-123 aircraft during his assignment to the 604th Military Airlift Support Squadron (MASS) while stationed at Clark AFB. In other words, verify whether any C-123 aircraft were assigned to the 604th MASS from June 1968 to December 1969; (b.) Whether the Veteran was at least temporarily assigned, while at Clark AFB, to one of the units VA has identified as having had regular and repeated contact with C-123 aircraft involved in Operation Ranch Hand (i.e. tactical herbicide proliferation in Vietnam); (c.) Whether any of the C-141 aircraft assigned to the 604th MASS from June 1968 to December 1969 were involved in Operation Ranch Hand. 2. After completing these actions, the AOJ should conduct any other development as may be indicated as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs. DUSTIN L. WARE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Rocktashel, 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.