Citation Nr: 19176797 Decision Date: 10/03/19 Archive Date: 10/03/19 DOCKET NO. 18-33 961A DATE: October 3, 2019 ORDER Service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II (type II diabetes), claimed as due to herbicide exposure, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that type II diabetes had is onset during active service, manifested to a compensable degree within the initial post separation year, or is otherwise etiologically related to in-service injury or disease; exposure to herbicide agents during active service is not established. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for type II diabetes are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 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 1965 to October 1969 in the U.S. Navy. This case comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service connection for type II diabetes due to herbicide exposure. The Veteran contends that he has diabetes due to herbicide exposure. He reports exposure to herbicide agents as follows: (1) Exposure during the Spring of 1968 at a military base in Maryland from an Agent Orange spill (2) exposure from his work on aircraft that he believes had been in Vietnam; and (3) exposure while performing duties as a bull dozer operator at the landfill where pesticides and Agent Orange were stored. See Hearing Testimony (May 2016), Lay Statement (July 1993), and VA 21-22 (September 2017). The Veteran does not report that a medical professional has linked his disability to exposure to herbicide agents; but rather, he believes his diabetes is linked to herbicide exposures based on information from a friend who reported to him that he obtained service connection for diabetes based on herbicide exposure due to the herbicide spill at the same location where he served. See Hearing Testimony at 6 (May 2016). 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, 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). Type II diabetes shall be considered to have been incurred in or aggravated by service although not otherwise established during the period of service if manifested to a compensable degree within one year following service in a period of war or following peacetime service on or after January 1, 1947. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). Service connection based on exposure to designated herbicide agents will be presumed for certain specified diseases that become manifest to a compensable degree within a specified period of time in the case of certain diseases. Type II diabetes is a disease associated with herbicide exposure for purposes of the presumption. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. Herbicide exposure is presumed for certain veterans that served in the Republic of Vietnam or Korea, in some circumstance for those with U.S. Air Force service involving C-123 aircraft, and in some circumstances those with service in Thailand. In this case, the Veteran has not contended nor does the record show that he is entitled to the presumption of herbicide exposure; his Form DD-214 reflects that the Veteran served in the U.S. Navy as an ADR3 (aircraft mechanic) and had no foreign service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6); VA Adjudication Manual (M21-1) (pertaining to U.S. Air Force veterans who served at certain Royal Thai Air Force Bases during the Vietnam Era). Notwithstanding, even if a veteran is not entitled to presumptive service connection for a disease claimed as secondary to herbicide exposure, service connection may be established with proof of direct causation. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also McCartt v. West, 12 Vet. App. 164, 167-68 (1999) (providing that the provisions set forth in Combee are equally applicable in cases involving claimed Agent Orange exposure). The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of type II diabetes, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s type II diabetes began during service, manifested to a compensable degree within one year after service separation, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. Further, the Board finds that exposure to herbicide agents is not shown. As an initial matter, herbicide exposure is not established. Apart from the Veteran’s own assertions and those of his buddy of herbicide exposure while serving at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station (PRNAS) in Maryland, there is no evidence from any official source showing he was actually exposed to herbicides during his active service. The record shows no credible evidence that herbicide agents were used, tested, or stored at PRNAS. The Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) conducted a review and did not corroborate the Veteran’s alleged herbicide exposure. The JSRRC also requested information from the VA Agent Orange Mailbox regarding verification of herbicide exposure at PRNAS. See VA Memo (July 2017). The Agent Orange Mailbox indicated that the DoD has not identified PRNAS as a location where Agent Orange was used, tested, or stored. See Email Correspondence (June 2017). The report indicated that, as there were no combat operations on PRNAS between 1962 and 1971, there was no need for Agent Orange use there. Additionally, PRNAS was not on the Agent Orange shipping supply line which went directly from storage at Gulfport, Mississippi to South Vietnam via merchant ships. Herbicide use on PRNAS was of the commercial variety. As such, the reports of herbicide exposure from an Agent Orange spill and/or bulldozer duties at a landfill with Agent Orange are not credible and, thus, are afforded no probative value. To the extent that the Veteran alleges secondary exposure from aircraft that had been in Vietnam, it is noted that, while he is competent to report working on aircraft, he testified that he did not, in fact, work on the aircraft but provided transportation to those who did. See Hearing Testimony at 8 (May 2016). Moreover, as a layperson, he is not competent to determine that any aircraft worked on, or was proximate to, were covered in Agent Orange or any other herbicide. There is no presumption of “secondary exposure” to herbicides based on being in proximity to, or working on, equipment or personal items used in Vietnam. The Veteran’s contention of exposure to herbicides from working on aircraft is not sufficient evidence that he was actually exposed to herbicides. The Veteran has not demonstrated that he is competent to identify herbicide agents, including those for which presumptions of service connection may apply. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). Also, the Board observes that he has not reported contact with C-123 aircraft and he is not a veteran of the U.S. Air Force. Additionally, service connection for type II diabetes is not warranted on a direct basis. See Combee, supra. Service treatment records (STRs) reflect no findings for diabetes in service. Although type II diabetes is a chronic disease recognized under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), it is not shown within the initial post separation year. The medical evidence indicates that type II diabetes is first documented over four decades after separation from service in October 2013. See Medical Treatment Record – Non-Government Facility (December 2014). No medical evidence has been presented showing that the Veteran’s type II diabetes had its onset in service, was first manifested within one year of service, or is otherwise attributable to in-service injury or disease. The Veteran has not alleged in-service onset or that the disease manifested to compensable degree within the initial post separation year. Other than herbicide exposure, addressed above as not shown, the Veteran has offered no other theory of entitlement for Board’s consideration. On balance, the weight of the evidence is against the claim. Accordingly, the claim is denied. As the evidence of record is not roughly in equipoise, there is no doubt to resolve. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. E., 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.