Citation Nr: 22052840 Decision Date: 09/16/22 Archive Date: 09/16/22 DOCKET NO. 19-06 327 DATE: September 16, 2022 ORDER Service connection for sarcoidosis (including due to herbicide agent exposure) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service or that his sarcoidosis was causally related to his service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria are not met for service connection for sarcoidosis (including due to herbicide agent exposure). 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1116, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service from July 1967 to July 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2022. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. Service connection for sarcoidosis due to herbicides exposure is denied. Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "Secondary" service connection may be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, another service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Certain chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and neuropathy, will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptoms since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service, certain diseases, including diabetes mellitus and early-onset peripheral neuropathy, shall be service connected if they manifest to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more at any time after service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6). This presumption of service connection will attach, even in the absence of any evidence of the disease while in service, provided that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1113 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (d) are also satisfied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e). Presumptive herbicide exposure requires a presence on the ground or in the inland waterways of the country; service on deep-water offshore vessels is insufficient to trigger the presumption. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(iii). Instead, it requires service on the landmass and includes service on the inland waterways. See Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1002 (2009). Service in certain areas of Thailand or Korea, during specified periods, may also trigger a finding that a Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents. The term "herbicide agent" means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, specifically: 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD; cacodylic acid; and picloram. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(i). Effective June 19, 2015, VA amended its regulation governing individuals presumed to have been exposed to certain herbicide agents by expanding the regulation to include an additional group consisting of individuals who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which they had regular and repeated contact with C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent ("Agent Orange") during the Vietnam era. Specifically, the new regulation states that an individual who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which the individual concerned regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam era shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent. For purposes of this paragraph, "regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft" means that the individual was assigned to an Air Force or Air Force Reserve squadron when the squadron was permanently assigned one of the affected aircraft and the individual had an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) indicating duties as a flight, ground maintenance, or medical crew member on such aircraft. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(v). The affected reserve units and dates of service for affected crew members were those assigned to Pittsburgh International Airport, Pennsylvania (1972-1982), Westover Air Force Base and Hanscom Field Air Force Base, Massachusetts (1972-1982), and Lockbourne/Rickenbacker Air Force Base, Ohio (1969-1986). The affected active-duty units and dates of service for affected crew members were as follows: Hurlburt Auxiliary Field, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (1970-1973), Langley Air Force Base, Virginia (1962-1963, 1970-1973), Luke Air Force Base, Arizona (1970-1973), Tainan Airfield, Taiwan (1969-1970), Howard Air Force Base, Panama (1970-1973), Osan Air Base, South Korea (1970-1973), and Clark Air Force Base, Philippines (1969-1970). The list of specialty codes for military personnel who had regular and repeated exposure to contaminated Operation Ranch Hand (ORH) C-123s, used to spray Agent Orange in Vietnam, as flight, maintenance, or medical crew members include the following for enlisted personnel: flight engineer/aircraft loadmaster (1130-1149), aircrew life support specialist (1220-1229), and aircraft maintenance specialist/flight technicians. Factual Background The record indicates that the Veteran was diagnosed with sarcoidosis in July 2000. See treatment note. The Veteran's military personnel records show that he was stationed at Kimpo Air Force Base (AFB) in 1969. The Veteran testified at the Board hearing that he was an aircraft mechanic that worked at the Seoul International Terminal and that he would come into contact with servicemembers who were stationed in Vietnam. The Veteran testified that he was exposed to Agent Orange by way of secondhand fumes from the uniforms of the servicemembers who came back from Vietnam. The Veteran further testified that he would "de-ice" some of the aircraft that had dispersed Agent Orange. Analysis The record reflects that the Veteran has a diagnosis of sarcoidosis. However, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record indicates that he did not experience an in-service injury or disability (including exposure to herbicide agents) and thus service connection cannot be granted. First, the Veteran does not indicate that sarcoidosis arose during service; likewise, his service treatment records are silent for symptoms or reports of sarcoidosis or exposure to Agent Orange. Second, the Veteran does not state that he had service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era as defined by statute and regulation; he does not assert, and the record does not show that he set foot in Vietnam or the Korean demilitarized zone ("DMZ"). Third, the Board finds that the other evidence of record indicates that the Veteran was not exposed to Agent Orange. The Veteran has provided competent and credible testimony regarding his memories of service at Seoul International Terminal, including de-icing aircraft that had dispersed Agent Orange and coming into contact with the clothes of service members who had stepped foot in Vietnam. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994) (holding that a lay witness is competent to testify to that which the witness has actually observed and is within the realm of his personal knowledge). The Veteran, however, lacks the expertise to conclude that these experiences indicate that he was exposed to Agent Orange, because this is a highly specialized determination requiring knowledge of chemical processes and exposure pathways. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(1) (noting that competent medical evidence must be provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions); Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469. Additionally, there is no competent evidence of sarcoidosis in service or within one year following discharge from service. Moreover, the most probative evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's current sarcoidosis is related to service. As such, service connection for sarcoidosis must be denied. VICTORIA MOSHIASHWILI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Alexander Bahus 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.