Citation Nr: 21042829 Decision Date: 07/14/21 Archive Date: 07/14/21 DOCKET NO. 16-56 965 DATE: July 14, 2021 ORDER Service connection for Parkinson's disease due to exposure to herbicide agents is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence demonstrates the Veteran has a current diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. 2. The evidence demonstrates that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his period of service at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base (hereinafter "Korat"). CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for Parkinson's disease due to exposure to herbicide agents during active military service are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5107: 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309(e). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1971 to October 1976. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision. In that rating decision, the RO denied entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease. The Veteran's notice of disagreement was received in February 2016. The RO issued a statement of the case in October 2016. The Veteran's VA Form 9, substantive appeal to the Board, was received in November 2016. In June 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board virtual hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the testimony is associated with the claims file. The Board notes that the Veterans Law Judge that held that hearing is no longer with the Board, and the Veteran was informed of that fact and given the opportunity to appear before a hearing with another Veterans Law Judge in a March 2021 letter. The Veteran has not responded to that letter; in any event, as this decision represents a full grant of benefits sought on appeal, there is no prejudice to the Veteran in proceeding with adjudication at this time. The Veteran contends that his Parkinson's disease is due to exposure to herbicide agents during active service. Specifically, he asserts that he was exposed to herbicide agents near the perimeter while stationed at Korat. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). VA laws and regulations provide that if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during service, certain listed diseases, including Parkinson's disease, are presumed to be related to that herbicide exposure, and absent affirmative evidence to the contrary, service connection is granted on a presumptive basis. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Although the presumption of in-service herbicide exposure does not extend to veterans who served in Thailand during the Vietnam era, due consideration is given as to whether exposure to herbicide agents can be conceded on a facts-found basis for certain veterans who served in Thailand. Exposure to herbicides on a factual basis may be extended to Veterans whose duties placed them on or near the perimeters of Thailand Air Bases during the Vietnam era, to include U-Tapao, Ubon, Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang. If the facts allow for a finding of in-service herbicide exposure, then service connection will be presumed for the diseases associated with herbicide exposure listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service connection by establishing the occurrence of observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). As mentioned above, Parkinson's disease is among the statutorily enumerated diseases set forth in VA regulations for which presumptive service connection is available for veterans exposed to herbicide agents during active service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The Veteran has a current diagnosis for Parkinson's disease according to February 2016 VA treatment records. Accordingly, the question before the Board is whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during military service. According to the Veteran's personnel records he was stationed at Korat from September 1974 to August 1975 working as a production supplier, and maintenance scheduling specialist. In a July 2020 letter from the Veteran, he describes the drift (Drift Zone) from the ground spraying of herbicides drifting up to 500 meters under normal conditions; witnessing the C-130s planes flying at low altitude at the base; and that the wind from the aircraft propellers on the flight line were able to spread herbicides in excess of the 500 meter drift zone. He further explained that his off-duty activities required him to enter or exit the drift zone near the perimeter, such as volunteering as an operator at the base radio station located a short distance from the perimeter fence. Additionally, the Veteran has submitted photographs with his July 2020 letter which validate his off duty activities such as the folk choir, the Veteran working as an operator at the base radio station, the security gate he was required to pass through weekly to volunteer at the orphanage, along with aerial maps indicating his physical activities such as tennis and football located near the perimeter line. During the June 2020 Board hearing he testified that his duties on the flight line and off-duty activities placed him near the base perimeter line where herbicides were sprayed. A May 2019 statement from a fellow service member corroborates the Veteran's statements that his service duties and extracurricular activities placed him on or near the perimeter fence line area to include: working on the flight line, volunteering at the radio station, folk choir at the base chapel, weekly volunteering at a children's orphanage which required he pass through the base perimeter security gate, and playing tennis in the area designated for physical training located directly across the street from the base perimeter line. When considering the credibility of lay evidence, the Board may consider internal consistency, facial plausibility, and consistency with other evidence of record. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995). In this case, the Veteran's service personnel records establish that he was stationed at Korat as a production supplier, and maintenance scheduling specialist between September 1974 to August 1975. The May 2019 letter from a fellow service member supports the Veteran's lay statements and testimony before the Board. Furthermore, the Veteran's stated exposure to areas near and within the base perimeter is consistent with his MOS of aircraft maintenance specialist. Nothing in the record contradicts the Veteran's sworn statement about his reported exposure, nor are there any contradictions within the statement. Accordingly, the Veteran's July 2020 letter and June 2020 Board testimony are afforded significant probative value. There is no affirmative evidence to explicitly contradict the Veteran's reports of being near the perimeter of the base and they are consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (each disabling condition for which a veteran seeks service connection must be considered based on factors including the basis of places, types, and circumstances of service as shown by service record). Thus, based on the foregoing, the record establishes the Veteran served in or near the Korat base perimeter and was thereby exposed to herbicide agents. In the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, the Veteran's Parkinson's disease is presumed due to in-service herbicide exposure. Accordingly, resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, service connection for Parkinson's disease is warranted. MARTIN B. PETERS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Ardalan, 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.