Citation Nr: 22018019 Decision Date: 03/27/22 Archive Date: 03/27/22 DOCKET NO. 14-31 865A DATE: March 27, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT Read in the light most favorable to the Veteran, the evidence is at least in relative equipoise that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents U Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) during his Vietnam-era service and had a diagnosis of Type II diabetes mellitus current during the period on appeal. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107; 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 October 1966 to July 1976 and from July 1980 to April 1987. He served honorably in the U.S. Air Force, including service in Thailand during the Vietnam era. The Board is thankful for the Veteran's service to our country. Unfortunately, the Veteran died in February 2017, during the pendency of the appeal. The Regional Office subsequently recognized his surviving spouse as the substitute claimant for the purposes of processing the claim to completion. The appellant testified before the undersigned at a Travel Board hearing in February 2022. Entitlement to service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus is granted. The appellant contends that service connection for diabetes mellitus is warranted as the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents in service. The Board agrees that service connection is warranted. Service connection may be granted for disability due to disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To substantiate a claim of service connection, there must be evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) a disease, injury, or event in service; and (3) a nexus or causal relationship between the claimed disability and the disease, injury, or event in service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service and has contracted an enumerated disability, such as Type II diabetes mellitus, to a degree of 10 percent or more disabling at any time after service, service connection is warranted even though there is no record of such disease during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). Certain veterans, albeit not those who served in Thailand during the Vietnam era, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to herbicide agents. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(3); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Vietnam era veterans who served in Thailand are entitled to demonstrate actual exposure to herbicides. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (unavailability of a presumption does not foreclose service connection on a direct basis). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has noted that "[t]he VA Compensation Service has acknowledged that there was '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). Decisions of the Board shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Competent lay evidence is any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a layperson. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). As an initial matter, the evidence of record shows that the Veteran had Type II diabetes mellitus current during the period on appeal. Accordingly, the Board will consider whether the evidence is at least in relative equipoise that he had herbicide agent exposure in service. In an April 2013 statement, the Veteran stated that his duties at U-Tapao RTAFB involved frequent trips to and through the base perimeter areas where defoliant was in use as the base did not have a central power supply and thus used generators scattered around the base and off-base at such locations as the outer marker and munitions storage areas. He also stated, separately, that he had temporary duty in the Republic of Vietnam to provide electrical support and generators. In a September 2015 Agent Orange program note, the Veteran reported that his in service occupation involved generator repair around the base amongst flora and grasses and that he had temporary duty in Danang in 1968 to repair generators. In a September 2016 Agent Orange program note, he denied handling or spraying Agent Orange or being sprayed with Agent Orange but endorsed being in a recently sprayed area. In a December 2019 statement, the appellant stated that the Veteran was stationed at U Tapao RTAFB and was responsible for maintaining generator sets located throughout the airport and adjacent to runways and perimeter fences. The Board observes that the Veteran's service personnel records corroborate his and the appellant's statements. In performance reports covering the period from October 1966 to March 1968 he was assigned to a squadron at U-Tapao Airfield in Thailand, and the reporting officials noted that, as an electrical power production specialist, he operated and performed emergency repairs on 65 generator sets, performing maintenance on mechanical and electrical systems that were out of service and operating approximately 10 different types of mobile units. The Board notes, significantly, that it does not appear that any further development of the evidence is reasonably likely to offer worthwhile clarification. The Board finds that the Veteran's statements as to in service duties near and through the U Tapao base perimeter is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service in Thailand as an electrical power production specialist operating and maintaining 65 generator sets. The Board finds that the Veteran's statements have been reasonably consistent and the Board considers them reasonably uncontradicted and credible for the purposes of this analysis. Accordingly, read in the light most favorable to the Veteran, the Board concludes that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise that the Veteran's duties at U Tapao RTAFB regularly included time in or near the perimeter, and crossing of the perimeter, to be exposed to herbicide agents. As the Veteran had herbicide agent exposure in service and a diagnosis of Type II diabetes mellitus current during the period on appeal, it is presumed that this disorder was incurred in service even without evidence of that disease during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). Accordingly, service connection for the disorder is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Vashaw, 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.