Citation Nr: 22011199 Decision Date: 02/25/22 Archive Date: 02/25/22 DOCKET NO. 20-09 609 DATE: February 25, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD) due to presumed herbicide agent exposure is granted. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran's has been diagnosed with CAD. 2. The Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents in Thailand. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for CAD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1965 to April 1968. This matter came to the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2018 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which, inter alia, denied entitlement to service connection for a heart disability. The Veteran disagreed with the RO's determination, and a statement of the case (SOC) was issued in January 2020 addressing the matter. The Veteran timely appealed. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in the active military, naval, air, or space service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be established on a presumptive basis for if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent, such as Agent Orange, during service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1116(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). Although veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam are presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents, the Veteran served in Thailand. In addition to exposure within the Republic of Vietnam, exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicide agents has been noted to have occurred in various places outside of the Republic of Vietnam, including Thailand: "VA Compensation Service has acknowledged that there is 'some evidence that the herbicides used on the Thailand base perimeters may have been either tactical, procured from Vietnam, or a commercial variant of much greater strength and with characteristics of tactical herbicides.'" Parseeya-Picchione v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 171, 177 (2016) (quoting COMP. & PENSION SERV. BULL. (U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, Washington, D.C.), May 2010, at 3). Specifically, VA has determined that U.S. Air Force Veterans who served on Royal Thai Air Force Bases (RTAFBs) at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat, and Don Muang, near the air base perimeter anytime between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975, may have been exposed to herbicides. To warrant a finding of herbicide agent exposure at one of the above listed air bases, a veteran must have served as an Air Force security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by military occupational specialty, performance evaluation, or other credible evidence. If any of these criteria are met, exposure to herbicide agents is to be conceded on a direct/facts-found basis. In the case of veterans who served at a U.S. Army base in Thailand during the Vietnam era, herbicide agent exposure may be conceded on a direct/facts-found basis for veterans who served as a member of the military police unit, or with a military police occupational specialty. A veteran who was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, certain enumerated 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The enumerated diseases which are deemed to be associated with exposure to herbicide agents includes CAD. Id. CAD In this case, the evidence of record indicates a CAD diagnosis. Specifically, a February 2018 private treatment record shows a diagnosis of CAD. Consequently, the first element of service connection has been met. With respect to the question of service incurrence, the evidence does not indicate, nor does the Veteran contend that he was exposed to herbicide agents while serving in Vietnam. Specifically, he asserts that he was exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Korat, Thailand. In this case, VA has attempted to confirm whether the Veteran has qualifying Vietnam era service as contemplated by VA laws in regulations. A May 2018Formal Finding indicated a lack of information required to verify Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. The information required to verify Agent Orange exposure was insufficient to send to Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC). Also noted was that the Veteran served at Korat RTAFB, Thailand, but there was no evidence of service on/near the perimeter to concede Agent Orange exposure. In a February 2018 letter, the Veteran reported exposure to Agent Orange while serving at Camp Friendship in Korat, Thailand for 13 months. He indicated that during these months, his unit, HHC 501st Field Depot, resided in a billet that was located within 50 yards of the perimeter fence. The Veteran noted that all vegetation lying outside the perimeter fence was, of course, dead from exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides. He further noted that the billet housing his unit was open to outside air through window screens open to outside weather throughout the year. In a January 2019 letter, the Veteran reported that when he serviced in Korat, Thailand he drove the Commanding Officer of Headquarters and Headquarters Company 501st Field Depot, Colonel K.D. around the post for approximately four months. While driving Colonel K.D. around the post, they would tour most of Camp Friendship, and several times he drove him to Bangkok and around the air force base. The Veteran noted his submitted photo shows him and his buddy, B.W. standing in front of the Headquarters & Headquarters Company 501st Field Depot sign, and in the background one can see stacks of barrels within 200 yards of his company quarters. He noted that their billets had insect screens and no glass windows, and the wind would blow dust through these screens year-round. The Veteran further noted that due to the relatively small size of Camp Friendship, no matter where you were or where you walked, you were exposed to tactical herbicide spray or residue. In his March 2020 substantive appeal (VA Form 9), the Veteran reported he roamed Camp Friendship, entering and exiting the security gates, visiting the airbase, driving his Colonel to hundreds of locations both on and off base. He asserted that their billets were located roughly 50 yards from the perimeter fence, and the billets had no windows, but only screens. The Veteran noted that he was affected by exposure to poisonous herbicide sprayed throughout the area. The Veteran's DD Form 214 shows that he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company 501st Field Depot in the Army. His personnel records show that he served in Korat, Thailand from March 1967 to April 1968. Notably, a Department of Defense report titled Project CHECO Southeast Asia confirms that Camp Friendship bordered the Korat Air Force Base on a section of the perimeter. See Parseeya-Picchione, 28 Vet. App. at 176. The Board must consider lay evidence in addition to the service records, and the places, types, and circumstances of service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). In addition, the Board must consider historical, and archival evidence, in addition to service records, in determining whether there was service in Vietnam or exposure to herbicide agents elsewhere. Parseeya-Picchione v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 171, 176 (2016). There is no affirmative evidence to explicitly contradict the Veteran's reports of being at the perimeter of the base and the Veteran's reports are generally consistent with the information contained in his service records. The statements of the Veteran are competent, credible, and consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service. See 38 U.S.C. § § 1154 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Exposure to herbicide agents is therefore conceded on a direct/facts-found basis. As the Veteran currently has CAD and is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents in Thailand, service connection for CAD is warranted on a presumptive basis. Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Walker, 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.