DIABETES MELLITUS

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Army from June 1968 to February 1970, appeals the denial of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, on a presumptive basis due to herbicide exposure. The veteran contends he was exposed to Agent Orange in the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and from equipment returning from Vietnam. The Board previously remanded the claim for additional development, including verifying DMZ service and herbicide exposure. The veteran's personnel records confirm service in Korea, but not specific DMZ service or herbicide exposure. VA made multiple attempts to obtain records and verify exposure, including requests to NPRC and NARA, and a researcher reviewed unit histories. However, these efforts did not substantiate the veteran's claims, and VA formally found the herbicide exposure unverified in March 2023. The Board found the veteran's lay statements credible regarding his belief of exposure, but they lacked probative weight without corroboration or specific duties linking him to herbicide use. While a VA treatment record noted an Agent Orange exam was positive, it lacked rationale. Weighing the veteran's statements against the VA researcher's findings, which did not mention herbicide use or storage, the Board found the evidence persuasively weighed against herbicide exposure. Therefore, presumptive service connection was denied.

Rationale

Veteran's service records confirm service in Korea, but not DMZ service or herbicide exposure.; VA's attempts to verify exposure through record requests and researcher review were unsuccessful.; Veteran's lay statements, while credible regarding belief of exposure, lacked probative weight without corroboration.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 25011993
Decision Date: 09/23/25	Archive Date: 09/23/25

DOCKET NO. 16-61 005
DATE: September 23, 2025

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, due to herbicide exposure, is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran did not serve in the demilitarized zone (DMZ) of Korea; and he was not otherwise exposed to herbicides in service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, have not 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 in the U.S. Army from June 1968 to February 1970.

The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in September 2019. A copy of the transcript is of record.

This case was previously before the Board in November 2019, when the claim for diabetes mellitus was reopened and remanded for additional development. Additional development was completed, and a March 2023 supplemental statement of the case was most recently issued. The Board denied service connection on a direct and presumptive basis in a July 2023 decision.

The Veteran appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a January 2025 memorandum decision, the Court vacated and remanded the Board's decision that denied entitlement to benefits for a diabetes on a presumptive basis and affirmed the Board's decision that denied entitlement to benefits for diabetes on a direct basis.

Presumptive Service Connection

For purposes of establishing service connection for a disability resulting from

exposure to an herbicide agent, a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air

service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January

9, 1962 and ending on May 7, 1975 shall be presumed to have been exposed during

such service to an herbicide agent, such as Agent Orange, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to any such

agent during that service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(d), 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). These

diseases include Type 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus, or adult-

onset diabetes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e).

With respect to presumptive service connection for herbicide exposure for service in Korea, the Department of Defense (DoD) has confirmed that the herbicide Agent Orange was used from April 1968 through August 1971 along the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) to defoliate fields between the front-line defensive positions and the south barrier fence. If it is determined that a veteran who served in Korea during this time period belonged to one of the units identified by DoD, then it is presumed that he or she was exposed to herbicides containing Agent Orange, and the presumptions outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) will apply. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iv). VA has acknowledged that herbicide agents were used at the DMZ between September 1967 and August 1971. See Blue Water Navy Act of 2019 H.R. 299, 116th Cong, PL 116-23 (2019) (amending the dates for presumed herbicide exposure along the Korean DMZ).

Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, due to herbicide exposure.

The Veteran contends that he has diabetes mellitus related to exposure to herbicide agents in the Korean DMZ and from contact with equipment that was once in Vietnam. Specifically, he alleges that his duties placed him in the DMZ on numerous occasions delivering vehicles and he often had to perform maintenance and repairs on equipment that had just been returned from Vietnam, with residual Agent Orange. See February 2011, April 2011, December 2012, June 2013, April 2023 Statements; November 2013 Report Occupational and Environmental Physician; September 2019 Board Hearing Testimony.

The record does not show, and the Veteran does not assert, that he had active service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. The Veteran specifically testified at his September 2019 BVA hearing that he had not served in Vietnam. See BVA Hearing Transcript at 5. Rather, the Veteran's personnel records confirm service in Korea. The Veteran testified that while he was
 occasions delivering vehicles and he often had to perform maintenance and repairs on equipment that had just been returned from Vietnam, with residual Agent Orange. See February 2011, April 2011, December 2012, June 2013, April 2023 Statements; November 2013 Report Occupational and Environmental Physician; September 2019 Board Hearing Testimony.

The record does not show, and the Veteran does not assert, that he had active service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. The Veteran specifically testified at his September 2019 BVA hearing that he had not served in Vietnam. See BVA Hearing Transcript at 5. Rather, the Veteran's personnel records confirm service in Korea. The Veteran testified that while he was not stationed in the DMZ, he visited the DMZ and was stationed not far from the DMZ.

The Board notes that a March 2012 VA memorandum made a formal finding of unavailability of the Veteran's complete personnel records. The Board acknowledges its heightened duty to assist in light of the unavailability of the Veteran's STRs. See O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365 (1991). Destruction or loss of the STRs does not create a heightened benefit of the doubt, but only a heightened duty on the part of VA to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt, to assist the claimant in developing the claim, and to explain its decision. Cromer v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 215 (2005).

Available personnel records confirm that the Veteran served in Korea, but the evidence does not confirm that the Veteran was in the DMZ. Thus, the Board may not presume that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while he was stationed in Korea. 

As noted above, the Veteran asserts that he was exposed to herbicides while delivering equipment to the DMZ. He also asserts that he handled equipment returning from Vietnam which may have had Agent Orange residue. 

VA has made multiple attempts to verify the Veteran's contentions. Specifically, requests for information from the VA through the Personnel Information Exchange System (PIES) showed that the Veteran had no exposure to herbicides. See April 2011, July 2011, and January 2012 VA 21-3101 Request for Information.

As detailed above, a March 2012 VA memorandum documents a formal finding of unavailability of the Veteran's complete personnel records. The memorandum indicates VA requested personnel records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), via PIES, in April 2011 and received a negative response. The memorandum also details that VA twice requested personnel records from the Veteran.

In February 2014, the Veteran submitted a January 2014 treatment record from the VA War Related Illness & Injury Study Center (WRIISC). The Veteran underwent a telephonic exposure assessment evaluation. The treatment provider noted the Veteran's reports of exposure to Agent Orange while serving in Korea and encouraged the Veteran to discuss his issues with his VA primary care provider and a VA benefits representative. See February 2014 Medical Treatment Record - WRIISC.

The Veteran was provided an Agent Orange examination by his treatment provider in June 2016. The treatment record reflects that the "Agent orange exam is positive for diabetes." No further rationale or details were documented in the treatment record.

At his September 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his unit was not stationed in the Korean DMZ, but his duties had brought him to the DMZ six or seven times. When asked how far he was stationed from the DMZ, the Veteran responded "Not far."

After a Board remand in November 2019, and per a remand directive, VA requested the Veteran's records from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in December 2019. VA sent a follow-up request in January 2020. In a January 2020 response, NARA directed VA to the NPRC for relevant records. See NARA letter dated January 27, 2020. VA subsequently requested the Veteran's records from NPRC in February 2020 and June 2020. VA informed the Veteran in April 2021 of VA's efforts to locate his records and verify his service in the Korean DMZ. VA informed the Veteran that it contacted NPRC in February and June 2020 but did not receive a response. VA submitted another request in March 2021 and received a response in May 2022 that "all available requested records have been uploaded." See May 2022 VA 21-3101 Request for Information. After requesting clarification that all available records provided were previously uploaded, VA again received a response that "all available personnel and medical records were uploaded" to the VA system. See August 2022 VA 21-3101 Request for Information.

The record also contains an undated Records Research Response
 informed the Veteran in April 2021 of VA's efforts to locate his records and verify his service in the Korean DMZ. VA informed the Veteran that it contacted NPRC in February and June 2020 but did not receive a response. VA submitted another request in March 2021 and received a response in May 2022 that "all available requested records have been uploaded." See May 2022 VA 21-3101 Request for Information. After requesting clarification that all available records provided were previously uploaded, VA again received a response that "all available personnel and medical records were uploaded" to the VA system. See August 2022 VA 21-3101 Request for Information.

The record also contains an undated Records Research Response, which reports that a professional researcher from VA completed comprehensive research on the Veteran's claimed herbicide exposure during his service with Company A and Company B, U.S. Army ASCOM Depot, Eighth U.S. Army from June 1968 to February 1970. The response notes the Veteran's personnel records had been destroyed and, consequently, VA has a heightened duty to assist. In an effort to substantiate the Veteran's claimed herbicide exposure, the researcher reviewed the June 1967 to August 1968 Unit History submitted by U.S. Army ASCOM Depot, the 1968 Command Chronology submitted by Eighth U.S. Army, the 1969 Command Chronology submitted by Eighth U.S. Army, and the 1970 Command Chronology submitted by Eighth U.S. Army. The response further details that NARA was unable to locate the 1969 and 1970 Unit Histories and ORLLs for U.S. Army ASCOM Depot. Lastly, the response states the records do not mention the use or storage of herbicides and do not mention or document any specific duties performed by the Veteran along the DMZ. See February 2022 Records Research Center Response.

In March 2023, VA issued a formal finding that it lacked the information to verify the Veteran's herbicide exposure while serving in Korea.

In April 2023, the Veteran submitted a statement reiterating that he was stationed at ASCOM Depot Eighth Army, Korea from January 1969 to February 1970. The Veteran asserted that Agent Orange was being utilized in the DMZ and stored at ASCOM Depot. The Veteran also repeated his assertions that his duties in Korea involved delivering supplies and equipment to different units along the DMZ that was being sprayed with herbicides. The Veteran further asserted that his other duties included recovering equipment that had been utilized in Vietnam. April 2023 VA 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim.

Regarding the heightened duty to assist with respect to assisting the Veteran in developing his claim, the Board finds that this duty has been met. As detailed above, a March 2012 VA memorandum documents a formal finding of unavailability of the Veteran's complete personnel records. The formal finding documents the efforts made by VA to obtain the Veteran's complete personnel records. In a November 2019 opinion, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim to obtain outstanding VA medical records and to take all appropriate action, including contacting NARA or any other appropriate entity, to verify the Veteran's temporary duty service in the DMZ. The RO subsequently submitted requests for the Veteran's personnel records to NARA in December 2019 and January 2020. When directed by NARA to contact the NPRC, the RO submitted two requests to NPRC in February and June 2020. After not receiving a response from NPRC, the RO notified the Veteran in April 2021 of the efforts to obtain his personnel records and requested that the Veteran provide any evidence he may have supporting his claim. In May 2021, the RO was notified by NPRC that the available records had been uploaded to the VA system. The RO also ensured that comprehensive research was conducted on the Veteran's claimed herbicide exposure during his service in Korea by a professional researcher at the Research Response Center. Given the above, the Board finds the heightened duty to assist with respect to assisting the Veteran in developing his claim has been satisfied.

The Board also has a heightened duty to consider applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. In that regard, the only evidence of herbicide exposure in service is the lay evidence provided by the Veteran, and the Board finds that his lay statements alone do not establish that he was in fact exposed to herbicide agents during service. The Board finds the Veteran's statements credible, and the Board does not doubt the Veteran's belief that he was exposed to herbicides while serving in Korea and that his duties brought him to the DMZ. However, the Veteran has not demonstrated any specialized training or experience showing he is capable of identifying the presence of herbicide agents or herbicide agent-related contamination on equipment related to his duties. Further, there is no evidence indicating the Veteran's duties involved
 duty to consider applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. In that regard, the only evidence of herbicide exposure in service is the lay evidence provided by the Veteran, and the Board finds that his lay statements alone do not establish that he was in fact exposed to herbicide agents during service. The Board finds the Veteran's statements credible, and the Board does not doubt the Veteran's belief that he was exposed to herbicides while serving in Korea and that his duties brought him to the DMZ. However, the Veteran has not demonstrated any specialized training or experience showing he is capable of identifying the presence of herbicide agents or herbicide agent-related contamination on equipment related to his duties. Further, there is no evidence indicating the Veteran's duties involved him going to the DMZ. Unfortunately, the Veteran's statements regarding his claimed exposure to herbicide agents while serving in Korea are not substantiated by the record, and the Veteran did not provide any response after being notified of VA's inability to verify his assertions and multiple requests for evidence or information that would support his claim. See, e.g., April 6, 2021, VA Letter to Veteran. Accordingly, and despite finding his statements credible as to his belief of the circumstances of his in-service experiences, the Board affords the Veteran's statements little probative weight.

The Board acknowledges a July 2016 VA treatment records that indicates the Veteran had an Agent Orange examination and it was positive. However, the Board affords this evidence no probative weight as it does not provide any rationale as to why the Veteran's examination was positive. 

Thus, the Veteran's statements are the only evidence of record supporting the Veteran's assertion that he was exposed to herbicides in Korea. When the Veteran's statements are weighed against the VA researcher's review of the June 1967 to August 1968 Unit History submitted by U.S. Army ASCOM Depot, the 1968 Command Chronology submitted by Eighth U.S. Army, the 1969 Command Chronology submitted by Eighth U.S. Army, and the 1970 Command Chronology submitted by Eighth U.S. Army, the Board finds herbicide exposure cannot be conceded. The records reviewed by the VA researcher did not mention the use or storage of herbicides and did not mention or document any specific duties performed by the Veteran's unit along the DMZ. Given the fact that this evidence is a product of VA's regular practice in researching assertions of herbicide exposure, the Board affords this evidence average probative value. 

After weighing the evidence, and considering the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively weighs against a finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in service. Since herbicide exposure is not shown by the evidence of record, presumptive service connection due to herbicide exposure is not warranted.

The claim is denied. 

 

Caroline Fleming

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Blackmore, Bryan R.

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.