Citation Nr: 25001663 Decision Date: 02/04/25 Archive Date: 02/04/25 DOCKET NO. 18-46 494 DATE: February 4, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to service connection, to include as due to herbicide exposure, for coronary artery disease (CAD) is denied. Entitlement to service connection, to include as due to herbicide exposure, for diabetes mellitus II is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's CAD did not originate in service, within a year of service, and is not otherwise etiologically related to his active service. 2. The Veteran's diabetes mellitus II did not originate in service, within a year of service, and is not otherwise etiologically related to his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for CAD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus II have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from February 1971 to August 1975. The Veteran died in January 2019. In June 2019, the appellant was substituted as the claimant. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO). These matters were denied in an October 2019 Board decision. That decision was vacated by the Board in June 2024 as the representative had not been provided a copy of a January 2019 docketing letter. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Establishing service connection generally requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 1. Entitlement to service connection for CAD. 2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus II. The appellant seeks entitlement to service connection for CAD and diabetes. Specifically, the appellant asserts that the Veteran's CAD and diabetes are etiologically related to in-service herbicide exposure. See June 2017 Claim. The evidence of record includes service treatment records (STRs) which are silent for any complaints or treatment related to the claims on appeal. Thereafter, an October 2004 VA medical record noted three myocardial infarctions (MIs) in the 1990s, with the last one in 1995. Additionally, a January 2005 Social Security Administration (SSA) examination noted a past medical history of the Veteran's CAD with multiple MIs. The first MI occurred in 1990, second in 1995, and third in 1997. A June 2013 VA medical record noted a 20 year history of diabetes. A July 2016 medical record noted a 23 year history of diabetes. A February 2018 VA cardiology record noted a cardiac history including an August 2010 finding for fixed apical/inferior wall defects with rim of peri-infarct ischemia, mid-basal lateral wall ischemia, moderate severe left ventricle dysfunction, and dilated left ventricle. Left heart catheterization was recommended. Diffuse severe pattern of CAD was found in September 2010. It was noted that the Veteran had been admitted multiple times including for percutaneous coronary intervention. In November 2019, the representative submitted a November 2018 letter from the Veteran who asserted being exposed to herbicides while working in the DMZ from late 1971 to the end of 1972. In this regard, he recalled that there was no foliage around his work area in the motor pool, and that he could tell something had been done to that area due to the lack of trees or foliage. He also stated that there was a nearby open field that was sprayed twice with Agent Orange. Lastly, in October 2024 the representative submitted a brief and a newspaper article titled, "Historic Former U.S. Base Near DMZ to Become Stronghold of Culture and Learning." The representative asserted that herbicide exposure should be conceded on a fact found basis. In support of this assertion, the representative cited the Veteran's lay statements as to recalling seeing no foliage at Camp Greaves, and that a nearby open field was sprayed twice with herbicides while he was there. The representative additionally cited a newspaper article showing that Camp Greaves was located approximately 1.2 miles from the DMZ. After a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for CAD and diabetes is not warranted. Initially, the Board notes that while the Veteran served during the Vietnam Era, the evidence does not show that he served in the Republic of Vietnam. Importantly, neither the Veteran nor his representative have asserted that he served on the land mass or in the coastal waters of Vietnam. Instead, the Veteran broadly claimed exposure to herbicides during service in Korea, including working near the DMZ. Effective February 24, 2011, VA amended its regulations to extend a presumption of herbicide exposure to certain veterans who served in Korea. Specifically, VA added a new paragraph to 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 that provides that a veteran who served between April 1, 1968, and August 31, 1971, in a unit that, as determined by the Department of Defense (DoD), operated in or near the Korean DMZ in an area in which herbicides are known to have been applied during that period, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iv). The evidence shows that the Veteran was stationed in Korea from September 25, 1971, to October 1972. The Veteran reported being stationed in Korea beginning in late 1971. As the evidence does not show that the Veteran served in or near the Korean DMZ between April 1, 1968, and August 31, 1971, service connection on a presumptive basis as due to in-service exposure to herbicides in Korea is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). Notwithstanding the presumption, service connection for a disability claimed as due to exposure to herbicides may be established by showing that a disorder resulting in disability or death was in fact causally linked to such exposure. See Brock v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 155, 162-64 (1997); Combee v. Brown, 34 F. 3d 1039, 1044 (Fed. Cir. 1994), citing 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b) and 1116 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Importantly, research conducted by VA did not find evidence that tactical herbicides were used, stored, sprayed, or transported by the Veteran's assigned unit in an area of operation within the demilitarized zone (DMZ). A formal finding was issued in June 2018 concluding that exposure to herbicides could not be corroborated. In this regard, neither the Veteran, the appellant, nor the representative have asserted exposure to herbicides during service other than being in areas that were reportedly sprayed with herbicides. However, such statements are speculative as it remains unclear what method of vegetation removal might have been used in areas where the Veteran reported a lack of vegetation. Instead, the Veteran merely stated that he knew something had to have happened to account for the lack of foliage. Additionally, apart from stating that a nearby field had been sprayed, the Veteran did not report that he actually saw what substance was being sprayed, or whether he saw or came into contact with containers of tactical herbicides. The lay statements do little more than suggest that herbicides might have been used and they do not address how, when and where the Veteran might have been exposed to herbicides in Korea, or how this applied to the Veteran other than a general implication that herbicides were at some point used in Korea. Apart from stating observations as to a lack of foliage, the lay statements do not support a finding that herbicides were used in locations where the Veteran would have come into direct contact. Accordingly, there is no indication that the Veteran came into direct contact with tactical herbicides. Additionally, while the article submitted by representative notes the proximity of the Veteran's reported base in Korea to the DMZ, it does not evidence that he came into direct contact with tactical herbicides. The Board therefore concludes that the evidence of record does not support a finding that the Veteran was directly exposed to herbicides at any time during service and service connection based on herbicide exposure is not warranted. The Board has further considered whether service connection is otherwise warranted on a direct basis. However, a review the STRs do not evidence any complaints or treatment related to a heart disability or diabetes. Instead, the evidence of record shows that the Veteran's heart disability and diabetes began in the 1990s, some 15 years following his separation from service. Importantly, neither the Veteran nor his representative have asserted that the claims on appeal are directly related to service other than due to herbicide exposure. Accordingly, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection on a direct basis other than due to herbicide exposure is not warranted. The Board further acknowledges that the Veteran had not been afforded a VA examination with respect to his service connection claims but finds no such examination was required as there is no evidence indicating that his heart disability and diabetes are related to service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). Accordingly, the evidence is persuasively against a finding of exposure to herbicides during service or that the Veteran's CAD and diabetes are otherwise related to service. As such, the second and third Shedden requirements have not been met and the claims are denied. S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Lamb, Christopher 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.