ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE

Summary

The Veteran, a Veteran who served from January 1969 to January 1971, including service in the Philippines as a guard, appeals the denial of service connection for ischemic heart disease. The Veteran contended that his condition was due to in-service exposure to herbicide agents. The Board reviewed evidence including the Veteran's lay statements, news articles discussing Agent Orange in the Philippines, a statement from a fellow servicemember who previously had his exposure verified, and VA's response indicating no official record of Agent Orange storage in the Philippines. The Veteran also testified about his service in Vietnam and guarding barrels at Subic Bay. The Board found the Veteran's lay statements credible and corroborated by service records, noting that while official records did not confirm herbicide storage, they did not disprove it either. The Board found the evidence plausible and the Veteran's account, supported by a previously verified fellow servicemember, carried sufficient weight. The Board determined the evidence regarding herbicide exposure was in approximate balance. Applying the benefit of the doubt, service connection for ischemic heart disease due to presumptive herbicide exposure was granted. The Board found the criteria for entitlement met.

Rationale

Current diagnosis of ischemic heart disease.; Presumptive association with herbicide exposure under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e).; Lay statements regarding exposure to barrels at Subic Bay were found credible and corroborated.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26012865
Decision Date: 02/11/26	Archive Date: 02/11/26

DOCKET NO. 220513-243087
DATE: February 11, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for ischemic heart disease is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence is in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during military service in Subic Bay, the Philippines.  

2. The Veteran's ischemic heart disease is presumptively due to his conceded in-service exposure to herbicide agents.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure, have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from January 1969 to January 1971.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in April 2022 under the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). 

In the May 2022 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on November 7, 2025.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2022 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or their representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. 

Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease

The Veteran contends that entitlement to service connection is warranted for ischemic heart disease.  Specifically, the Veteran contends that his ischemic heart disease is directly related to his active service, to include as due to his claimed in service exposure to herbicide agents. 

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).

A Veteran, who during active service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era shall be presumed to have been exposed during that service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to any herbicide agent during service.  38 U.S.C. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii).  Service connection based on herbicide agent exposure will be presumed for certain specified diseases, such as ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus type II, and Parkinson's disease.  38 U.S.C. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6).  

If a veteran did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, actual exposure to herbicide agents must be verified through appropriate service department or other sources in order for the presumption of service connection for an herbicide-related diseased under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) to be applicable.  Exposure to herbicide agents is not presumed in such instances.  However, once exposure to herbicide agents has been established by the evidence of record, the presumption of service connection found in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) for herbicide-related diseases is applicable.

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter (which includes but is not limited to equipoise), VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see Lynch v. McDonough, 
.F.R. § 3.309(e) to be applicable.  Exposure to herbicide agents is not presumed in such instances.  However, once exposure to herbicide agents has been established by the evidence of record, the presumption of service connection found in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) for herbicide-related diseases is applicable.

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter (which includes but is not limited to equipoise), VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 778 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

The Veteran has a current diagnosis of coronary artery disease.  The Board recognizes that this claimed disability is a disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents as defined at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e).

The Veteran's contention is that he was exposed to herbicide agents in service, and therefore, presumptive service connection should be granted.  

The Veteran's military personnel records indicate that he served at the Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines from 1969 to 1971.  The records further indicate that the Veteran's primary duty there was as a guard. 

To support his claim, the Veteran submitted a January 2005 news article that stated a New Zealand official had admitted to supplying Agent Orange chemicals to the United States military during the Vietnam War.  In the article, the New Zealand official reported that products used to make Agent Orange were shipped from New Plymouth to Subic Bay in the Philippines during the 1960s.

In July 2021, the Veteran submitted an article published by the Law Offices of Hill & Ponton, P.A. which indicated that two Veterans had won VA appeals for exposure to Agent Orange in Subic Bay.  The article noted that these Veterans indicated that they were exposed to Agent Orange in barrels when serving as guards.

In an October 2021 statement by A.C., a friend of the Veteran who served with him at Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines noted that "[a]ll of us Marines in our separate guard company guarded the jungle, as well as patrolling the Cubic Point Naval Magazine and Camayan Pier. We walked around hundreds of barrels of Agent Orange, many which were leaking due to corrosion. The barrels were marked with orange stripes."  Notably, A.C. is one of the two Veterans referenced in the article published by the Law Offices of Hill & Ponton, P.A. 

However, in a November 2021 email from VA, it was reported that the Department of Defense (DoD) had provided VA's Compensation Service with a listing of locations outside Vietnam and the Korean DMZ where Agent Orange was used, tested, or stored.  They reported that DoD had not identified any location in the Philippines where Agent Orange was used, tested, or stored.  It was noted that Agent Orange was developed for jungle combat operations in Vietnam and was used there from 1962 to early 1971.  There were no combat operations in the Philippines during those years and so there was no need for Agent Orange use there.  The Philippines were not on the Agent Orange shipping supply line, which went directly from Gulfport, Mississippi to South Vietnam via merchant ships. 

At the November 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he was sent to the Republic of Vietnam on two occasions. Specifically, the Veteran testified that he was sent to the Republic of Vietnam "[p]art of a day on the first trip and then on the second trip, I believe we went to a Marine Corps base further up in Vietnam, and we had to spend the night so we could catch the plane back to the Philippines in the morning". The Veteran further testified "[w]e were guarding weapons storage and brought in and taken out. And then we also had some bases where they took some of the barrels off of the boats at Subic Bay and then, would either unload them and take them out and put them in Quonset huts that were underground. Or they would leave them on the -- what I call a grinder, which is a big place where boats come in, load, unlock -- or unload". The Veteran further testified that his duties as a guard had him frequently around these barrels, and that sometimes they would leak or break open and there would be puddles.

In the 90-day period following the Board hearing, the Veteran submitted a statement dated October 2025 from his nephew who stated that he recalled his father, who served in the Republic of Vietnam, saying that a lot of veterans came in contact with agent orange in Vietnam, but that his uncle, the Veteran, "ended up guarding warehouses
 them and take them out and put them in Quonset huts that were underground. Or they would leave them on the -- what I call a grinder, which is a big place where boats come in, load, unlock -- or unload". The Veteran further testified that his duties as a guard had him frequently around these barrels, and that sometimes they would leak or break open and there would be puddles.

In the 90-day period following the Board hearing, the Veteran submitted a statement dated October 2025 from his nephew who stated that he recalled his father, who served in the Republic of Vietnam, saying that a lot of veterans came in contact with agent orange in Vietnam, but that his uncle, the Veteran, "ended up guarding warehouses of that [Agent Orange] in the Philippines."

After careful review, the Board finds the lay statements of the Veteran regarding his exposure to the liquid from the barrels to be both competent and credible, as although the exact contents of the barrels remains unknown, the Veteran's statements convey matters within his personal knowledge, such as his repeated physical contact with the barrels and his observations of their appearance, and are otherwise consistent with each other as well as with the nature and circumstances of the Veteran's service.  See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  Furthermore, the Veteran's lay statements regarding the time and location are corroborated by his service personnel records, which confirm his assigment to Subic Bay in the Philippines and his service as a guard there from 1969 to 1970.  See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a).

The Board acknowledges that official service personnel records do not expressly confirm that the barrels contained Agent Orange, or even that herbicide agents were stored at Subic Bay from 1969-1970.  Although official sources do not establish the presence of herbicide agents in Subic Bay, the Board remains unsatisfied that such sources persuasively demonstrate that herbicide agents were not temporarily stored at Subic Bay for cross-loading onto ships traveling to and from Vietnam.  The Board further finds that the Veteran's lay statements and supportive evidence render it plausible that the barrels with an orange stripe contained toxic chemicals of some sort, and submitted supportive articles indicates that the barrels may have contained Agent Orange.  Additionally, the Veteran's consistent lay statements carry sufficient probative weight to establish that the nature of his guard duties at Subic Bay exposed him to the leaked contents of the barrels.  In this regard, it is highlighted that the Veteran supported his lay statements with those by his friend, A.C., who was previously found by VA to have been exposed to herbicide agents while serving at Subic Bay Naval Base.  Both the Veteran and A.C. state that they served together and performed similar duties at the Subic Bay Naval Base, and the Board has no basis to question this account.

Considering the Veteran's current diagnosis of ischemic heart disease, and resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Board finds that, in consideration of the totality of circumstances, the evidence of record is in approximate balance regarding whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his military service in the Philippines.  Accordingly, resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, presumptive service connection for herbicide agent exposure for ischemic heart disease is warranted in this case.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.307(a), 3.309(e).

 

 

A. ISHIZAWAR

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	David M. Sebstead

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. 


20.1303.