ARTERIOSCLEROTIC HEART DISEASE (CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE)

Summary

The veteran, who served from July 1960 to December 1967, appeals the denial of service connection for ischemic heart disease (IHD), diabetes mellitus type II, hypertension, and bilateral upper and lower extremity peripheral neuropathy. The veteran claimed these conditions were secondary to herbicide agent exposure in Taiwan and also testified to radiation exposure as a weapons mechanic. The Board found no evidence of herbicide exposure in Taiwan, noting that the veteran's service personnel records confirmed duty in Korea, not Taiwan, and that the Department of Defense and Military Records Research Center did not verify herbicide use or storage in Taiwan. The Board also found the veteran's testimony regarding exposure to an unknown chemical for vegetation control to be speculative, lacking corroboration, and insufficient to establish exposure. Regarding radiation exposure, the Board noted the absence of presumptive conditions or specific evidence of exposure, and that the veteran's personnel and treatment records were negative for such exposure. The Board concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate exposure to herbicide agents or radiation. Furthermore, the Board found that the claimed conditions of IHD, diabetes mellitus type II, and hypertension did not onset during service or within one year of separation, and there was no continuity of symptoms. The claim for peripheral neuropathy was found to be secondary to diabetes mellitus, but since diabetes mellitus was not service-connected, this secondary claim also failed. Consequently, all claims for service connection were denied.

Rationale

No evidence of herbicide exposure in Taiwan.; No evidence of radiation exposure.; Condition did not onset during service or within one year of separation.; No continuity of symptoms from service to diagnosis.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26005112
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 19-25 680
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease (IHD) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral upper and lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran was not exposed to herbicide agents in service.

2. The Veteran's IHD, diabetes mellitus type II, and hypertension did not onset during active service, did not manifest within one year of separation from active service.

3. The Veteran's peripheral neuropathy is secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for IHD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

2. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus type II have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

3. The criteria for service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

4. The criteria for service connection for bilateral upper and lower extremity peripheral neuropathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. 

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from July 1960 to December 1967.

The matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2018 rating decision.

The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in August 2022 and June 2024. Transcripts of these hearings are of record.  

The Board denied the claims for service connection for IHD, diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, pes planus, and GERD in January 2023. The Veteran appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) and both parties filed a Joint Motion for Remand, in which they moved the Court to vacate the denials and remand the matter to the Board. The Court granted the Joint Motion in November 2023, and the Board remanded the matter in July 2024 for development consistent with the Joint Motion.

The Joint Motion instructed the Board to complete the following regarding the remaining claims: afford the Veteran another hearing in which he is advised to submit evidence that could support his claim regarding exposure; and obtain any outstanding private treatment records. The Veteran was provided another Board hearing in June 2024 at which time he was instructed that he needs to demonstrate exposure to herbicide agents to support his claim. Regarding his private treatment records, the Veteran testified in the June 2024 hearing that he submitted all available records with his original claims. Regardless, the Board remanded the matter to obtain authorized private treatment records in July 2024, and all available records were obtained. 

In December 2025, the Board remanded the matter again for a toxic exposure risk activities (TERA) memorandum to assess his claims of radiation and herbicide agent exposure due to discrepancies in previous TERA memoranda regarding herbicide agent exposure. The Board also remanded to assist in corroborating the Veteran's contention that he was exposed to herbicide agents in Taiwan. The Board finds that there was substantial compliance with the remand instructions, as discussed below. 

1. Entitlement to service connection for IHD is denied.

2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II is denied. 

3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied.

4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral upper and lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied. 

The Veteran seeks service connection for IHD
 toxic exposure risk activities (TERA) memorandum to assess his claims of radiation and herbicide agent exposure due to discrepancies in previous TERA memoranda regarding herbicide agent exposure. The Board also remanded to assist in corroborating the Veteran's contention that he was exposed to herbicide agents in Taiwan. The Board finds that there was substantial compliance with the remand instructions, as discussed below. 

1. Entitlement to service connection for IHD is denied.

2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II is denied. 

3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied.

4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral upper and lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied. 

The Veteran seeks service connection for IHD and diabetes mellitus secondary to herbicide agent exposure in service and service connection for hypertension and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities secondary to diabetes mellitus. He contends that he was exposed to herbicide agents in Taipei, Taiwan. 

Diabetes mellitus type II and IHD are diseases presumptively related to tactical herbicide agents; therefore, a nexus is not necessary in this case if the evidence proves exposure to tactical herbicide agents during military service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Effective August 10, 2022, hypertension was added to the list of diseases presumptively related to tactical herbicide exposure by the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxins Act of 2022 (PACT Act), 117 P.L. 168 (enacted Aug. 10, 2022), § 404(c) (to be codified at 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(2)(M)).

The Veteran does not contend, and the record does not show, that he had active service in the Republic of Vietnam or any other location where there is currently a presumption for exposure to herbicides. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307; Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxins Act of 2022 (PACT Act), 117 P.L. 168 (enacted Aug. 10, 2022). Therefore, in-service exposure to herbicide agents is not presumed.

Without a presumption of exposure, the Veteran must show that he was exposed to herbicide agents on a facts-found basis. In a June 2019 statement, he wrote that there was an air base with an emergency air strip in Taiwan that was overgrown with elephant grass and treated with herbicide agents to kill the overgrowth, which he was exposed to for two weeks. In August 2019, he wrote that he served in Taiwan for approximately one month. In the August 2022 Board hearing, he testified that he was in Taiwan, possibly from July to November 1965, but that he cannot recall the dates. His representative suggested during the hearing that his mission was classified and that is why his records show only Kunsan AB. The Veteran testified that there was no greenery around the barracks while he was stationed at in Taiwan, except in the back, and that he was sprayed with an unknown chemical at one point while they were reportedly treating the remaining elephant grass. He testified that no one confirmed the chemical was an herbicide agent like Agent Orange. 

His service personnel records show that he departed for the Republic of Korea on July 1, 1965 and that he was stationed at Kunsan Air Base (AB), Republic of Korea beginning on July 20, 1965. A July 23, 1965 service treatment record shows that he sought treatment for urethral discharge at the Kunsan AB dispensary after "contact 4 days ago in Taipei Formosa." Subsequent treatment records from 1965 show that he was treated at Kunsan AB. Thus, while his personnel and service treatment records confirm that he was stationed at Kunsan AB beginning July 20, 1965, this service treatment record shows that he spent at least one day in Taiwan between July 1, 1965 (his departure date for Korea per his personnel records) and July 19, 1965. There is no official duty assignment to Taiwan, however. The Veteran testified that he was supposed to be assigned to Taiwan, but his personnel records clearly state he departed the U.S. on July 1, 1965, for Korea. As for his representative's suggestion that perhaps his mission was classified and this was some type of CIA cover-up, the Board does not find this argument persuasive. This was apparently based on the Veteran's statement he flew to Taiwan on a "rented" plane and the representative's belief that Homestead Air Force Base wasn't a "real" Air Force Base but a CIA base. All of these assertions were from the representative, however, not the Veteran
 personnel records) and July 19, 1965. There is no official duty assignment to Taiwan, however. The Veteran testified that he was supposed to be assigned to Taiwan, but his personnel records clearly state he departed the U.S. on July 1, 1965, for Korea. As for his representative's suggestion that perhaps his mission was classified and this was some type of CIA cover-up, the Board does not find this argument persuasive. This was apparently based on the Veteran's statement he flew to Taiwan on a "rented" plane and the representative's belief that Homestead Air Force Base wasn't a "real" Air Force Base but a CIA base. All of these assertions were from the representative, however, not the Veteran. The Veteran never claimed he was part of any CIA operation or classified mission.

His personnel records show that he worked as a cook in the dining hall from June 1965 to June 1966. That was also his MOS from 1960 to 1965. 

In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted a November 2018 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The report states that a review of logbooks and shipping articles for vessels carrying Agent Orange and other tactical herbicides show that these vessels made stops at foreign ports to refuel including Taiwan. The records do not show whether and how much cargo was loaded and unloaded at these ports of call, nor whether tactical herbicides were offloaded. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has not identified Kunsan Air Base or Taiwan as locations outside of the United States and the Republic of Vietnam that tested, stored, and/or disposed of herbicide agents. See Herbicide Tests and Storage Outside the U.S., available at https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/locations/tests-storage/outside-vietnam.asp.

The AOJ submitted a request to the Military Records Research Center (MRRC) to corroborate the Veteran's claimed exposure to herbicide agents and a response was received in December 2025. MRRC partnered with the Air Force Historical Research Agency, which was unable to confirm the exposure events alleged by the Veteran. MRRC also noted that the DOD tactical herbicide location list did not verify the herbicide exposure claimed by the Veteran. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) also completed a TERA memorandum in January 2026 and determined that he did not participate in TERAs in service. The AOJ also provided notice of such to the Veteran in January 2026. 

The Board considered the Veteran's testimony but finds that the weight of the evidence does not show that the Veteran handled or came into contact with tactical herbicide agents like Agent Orange. He testified that he did not know which chemical he was accidentally sprayed with, and that it was never confirmed to him that tactical herbicide agents were used. Furthermore, the Board finds that the DOD's assertion and MRRC research findings that tactical herbicide agents were not used or stored in Taiwan to be more probative.  The Veteran's assertions are speculative in nature. The issue is not whether the Veteran's assertions are possible; it is whether the evidence is in equipoise on the issue.   Although he is competent to testify as to events that occurred in military service, he admits no one ever informed him tactical herbicides were used to clear plants. He bases his belief on the fact the vegetation was dead near the barracks. There is no presumption of exposure based on use of unknown chemical(s) for vegetation control. While the Veteran surmises the chemical used was a tactical herbicide, the underlying premise this was so has not been established by competent evidence.  His statements are purely speculative that there was some chemical used to clear vegetation which could have been tactical herbicides are insufficient to factually establish such exposure.

The Board also considered the November 2018 GAO report but finds that it is not persuasive evidence that tactical herbicide agents were used in Taiwan or that the Veteran was exposed to them. The report specifically states that it is unknown whether tactical herbicides were offloaded at foreign ports on the way to Vietnam. Moreover, the Veteran's MOS (cook) would not place him in contact with these ships at port, nor does he allege he ever went to a port and potentially handled herbicides. The Board finds that DOD's assertion and MRRC research findings that tactical herbicide agents were not used or stored in Taiwan is more probative than this report.

Consequently, the Board finds that the evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, during his military service.

The Veteran also testified in the June 2024 Board hearing that he was exposed to radioactive material in service due to his MOS as a weapons mechanic at Minot Air Force Base. 

The Board notes that the Veteran's claimed conditions are not presumptive conditions associated with radiation under 38 C.F.R
 place him in contact with these ships at port, nor does he allege he ever went to a port and potentially handled herbicides. The Board finds that DOD's assertion and MRRC research findings that tactical herbicide agents were not used or stored in Taiwan is more probative than this report.

Consequently, the Board finds that the evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, during his military service.

The Veteran also testified in the June 2024 Board hearing that he was exposed to radioactive material in service due to his MOS as a weapons mechanic at Minot Air Force Base. 

The Board notes that the Veteran's claimed conditions are not presumptive conditions associated with radiation under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(d) nor radiogenic diseases per 38 C.F.R. § 3.311. Also, the Veteran has not submitted evidence that they are radiogenic diseases per 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b)(4). Therefore, the specific procedures for developing claims based on radiation exposure are not applicable at this time.

His personnel treatment records show that he served as a munitions loading team member and weapons mechanic in 1967. His records are negative for radiation exposure or relevant evidence that suggest such. VA conducted record searches and completed several TERA memoranda, which found no evidence of radiation exposure. The Veteran has not submitted other evidence of radiation exposure to support his testimony, nor evidence of a relationship between his conditions and such exposure. His medical records do not show that he has reported radiation exposure while seeking treatment for these conditions. For these reasons, the Board finds that the Veteran's hearing testimony is not probative evidence of radiation exposure, and service connection is not warranted on that basis. 

In the August 2022 Board hearing, the Veteran confirmed that he was seeking service connection for his conditions as caused by herbicide agent exposure or secondary to his diabetes mellitus. An October 2023 brief also shows that he was seeking service connection solely due to herbicide agent exposure or diabetes mellitus. In the June 2024 hearing, he only testified as to radiation and herbicide agent exposures. He did not allege that any of his conditions began in service. The Board still considered whether entitlement to service connection is warranted on other bases but finds that it is not.

The evidence shows the Veteran reported that his CAD and hypertension onset in approximately 1990, 23 years after separation from service. There is no lay or medical evidence that suggests his symptoms began in service. He reported in a 2003 VA treatment record that he was diagnosed with diabetes in 2002, 35 years after separation from service, and there is no lay or medical evidence that suggests his symptoms began in service. He also has a diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Thus, the medical and lay evidence does not show these conditions began in service, shortly after service, nor was there a continuity of symptoms from service to diagnosis. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for IHD, diabetes, hypertension, and neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities is not warranted. Because the weight of the persuasive evidence does not show herbicide or radiation exposure, VA's duty to provide a medical opinion was not triggered. See McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).

 

 

MICHELLE L. KANE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M. Lavan

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.