Philippines VA claims: Clark Air Base, Subic Bay, Agent Orange and what the Board grants

Is there an Agent Orange presumption for the Philippines?

No. The Philippines, including Clark Air Base and Subic Bay, is not among the places where VA presumes herbicide exposure. For any other place, VA's manual says it is the claimant's burden to establish the exposure as a fact (M21-1 VIII.i.1.A).

VA's location presumptions name Vietnam and its offshore waters, the Korean DMZ, Thailand, Laos, parts of Cambodia, Guam, American Samoa and Johnston Atoll, each for set dates. A Philippines claim on its own is a direct claim: proof of the exposure, a current diagnosis and a medical link.

How often does the Board grant these claims?

A little more often than for veterans overall: 27.2% of herbicide-list claims in decisions that name the Philippines, against 23.7% for all veterans. Diabetes was granted 25.4% of the time, against 22.3% overall.

1,481 Board decisions from 2020 to 2025 with a service-connection claim name the Philippines or a place there. The decision records herbicide exposure in 740 of them (50.0%). The chart compares each condition with all veterans who claimed it.

Bar: share granted for the Philippines veterans

Red mark: all veterans with the same condition

Conditions on the Agent Orange list

VA presumes these for herbicide exposure at the listed places, not for the Philippines.

• Diabetes DC 7913

  25.4% · 94 of 370

  all veterans 22.3%On the Agent Orange list

• Hypertension DC 7101

  21.4% · 44 of 206

  all veterans 19.1%On the Agent Orange list

• Coronary artery disease DC 7005

  34.5% · 69 of 200

  all veterans 32.8%On the Agent Orange list

• Prostate, bladder or kidney cancer DC 7528

  35.1% · 53 of 151

  all veterans 32.5%On the Agent Orange list

• Parkinson's disease DC 8004

  29.3% · 12 of 41

  all veterans 36.9%On the Agent Orange list

• Leukemia DC 7703

  18.2% · 4 of 22

  all veterans 32.6%On the Agent Orange list

Other conditions Philippines veterans claimed

• PTSD DC 9411

  29.0% · 88 of 303

  all veterans 26.6%

• Hearing loss DC 6100

  20.0% · 24 of 120

  all veterans 21.0%

• Sleep apnea DC 6847

  13.6% · 16 of 118

  all veterans 24.8%

• Nerve damage, legs DC 8520

  22.0% · 24 of 109

  all veterans 23.6%

• Tinnitus DC 6260

  38.4% · 33 of 86

  all veterans 51.7%

• Erectile dysfunction DC 7522

  22.8% · 18 of 79

  all veterans 19.0%

• Knee DC 5257

  22.2% · 16 of 72

  all veterans 16.7%

• Nerve damage, arms DC 8513

  19.1% · 13 of 68

  all veterans 18.1%

• Back (degenerative arthritis) DC 5242

  32.3% · 20 of 62

  all veterans 27.8%

• Skin cancer DC 7818

  19.0% · 11 of 58

  all veterans 19.5%

• Back (disc disease) DC 5243

  24.0% · 12 of 50

  all veterans 19.9%

• Migraine DC 8100

  12.5% · 5 of 40

  all veterans 24.9%

• Shoulder DC 5201

  32.4% · 12 of 37

  all veterans 16.7%

• Back or neck strain DC 5237

  13.5% · 5 of 37

  all veterans 15.2%

• Schizophrenia DC 9201

  8.8% · 3 of 34

  all veterans 12.8%

• Dermatitis or eczema DC 7806

  15.6% · 5 of 32

  all veterans 16.7%

• Depression DC 9434

  37.5% · 12 of 32

  all veterans 40.0%

• Digestive cancers DC 7343

  16.7% · 5 of 30

  all veterans 22.0%

• Anxiety DC 9400

  14.3% · 4 of 28

  all veterans 20.9%

• COPD DC 6604

  3.6% · 1 of 28

  all veterans 12.2%

• Degenerative arthritis (other joints) DC 5003

  28.6% · 8 of 28

  all veterans 31.5%

• Hip or thigh DC 5253

  11.1% · 3 of 27

  all veterans 15.5%

• TBI DC 8045

  4.3% · 1 of 23

  all veterans 12.3%

• Loss of use of both feet DC 5110

  13.6% · 3 of 22

  all veterans 9.2%

• Irritable bowel syndrome DC 7319

  19.0% · 4 of 21

  all veterans 23.7%

• Prostate condition DC 7527

  25.0% · 5 of 20

  all veterans 12.0%

One count per veteran per condition; a remand counts as not granted. Conditions with at least 20 veterans.

Diabetes was granted for 94 of 370 veterans, coronary artery disease for 69 of 200 and hypertension for 44 of 206. Conditions off the list were granted 22.4%, against 23.6% for the same mix of conditions overall; sleep apnea (13.6%) and tinnitus (38.4%) were well below the national share.

Why do they do as well as everyone else without a presumption?

Mostly because of service elsewhere. Of 212 decisions that granted a herbicide-list condition, 173 (81.6%) also name Vietnam, Thailand or another place with its own presumption.

In the first grant below, the Board conceded exposure on the veteran's credible, corroborated testimony. The second rested on Vietnam service.

Why are Philippines herbicide claims denied?

For 308 denials of herbicide-list conditions, the Board's note named the exposure in 70.8% of them: the Board did not find qualifying service at a listed place, or proof of exposure in the Philippines.

Read the decisions

Recent decisions, with the Board's reasoning as summarized by AI:

• A25097042, November 2025: hypertension and ischemic heart disease granted; the Board conceded herbicide exposure on the veteran's credible and corroborated testimony, for service that included Clark Air Base and Subic Bay.
• A25107453, December 2025: diabetes and coronary artery disease granted on presumed exposure during service in Vietnam, in a decision that also names the Philippines.
• A25097785, November 2025: diabetes claimed from Agent Orange in the Philippines, denied; the Board found no qualifying service and not enough evidence of actual exposure.

What the data cannot tell you

The Philippines group comes from the places each decision names; a mention is not proof of service there or of exposure, and many of these veterans also served elsewhere. Service-connection claims only; rating appeals are left out. The herbicide flag and denial notes are AI-extracted. These are historical outcomes, not predictions.

For representatives

• Look for service at a listed place first, including ships in Vietnam's waters: that is where most of these grants came from.
• Without it, build the exposure as a fact: unit, duties, dates, and any records of herbicide use where the veteran served.
• Get a medical opinion that links the condition to the exposure the evidence supports.