DIABETES MELLITUS

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from April 1972 to January 1975, including service in Thailand at Udorn RTAFB, appeals the denial of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus. The Veteran claimed his diabetes was due to herbicide exposure during service, specifically while stationed near the perimeter of Udorn RTAFB. The Board reviewed evidence including the Veteran's statements, a photograph of his barracks, service personnel records confirming his MOS and duty locations, and testimony from a Board hearing. The Veteran stated he commuted onto the air base daily and traversed the perimeter multiple times a day. The Board found the Veteran's statements regarding his service and exposure to be competent and credible, and the evidence regarding his proximity to the base perimeter to be in approximate balance. Applying the benefit of the doubt, the Board found the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents on a facts-found basis. As type II diabetes mellitus is presumptively linked to herbicide exposure, service connection was granted. The Board noted this grant was not based on the PACT Act, thus affecting the effective date calculation.

Rationale

Veteran served in Thailand near Udorn RTAFB perimeter; Veteran's statements regarding service and exposure found competent and credible; Evidence in approximate balance regarding proximity to base perimeter; Benefit of the doubt resolved in Veteran's favor; Type II diabetes mellitus is presumptively linked to herbicide exposure

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26036017
Decision Date: 04/17/26	Archive Date: 04/17/26

DOCKET NO. 210714-172359
DATE: April 17, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence is in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran's service at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) placed him on or near the perimeter of the base.

2. The Veteran has been diagnosed with type II diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for type II diabetes mellitus have 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 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had active service from April 1972 to January 1975.

In July 2020, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, and requested readjudication of this issue most recently addressed in an unappealed September 2016 Statement of the Case. In August 2020, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the supplemental claim decision on appeal, which found that new and relevant evidence had been received and denied the claim based on the evidence of record at the time of that decision.  

In the July 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on December 18, 2024, and a copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the file.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2020 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran [or 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. 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Service connection for type II diabetes mellitus, to include as due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent

The Veteran contends his type II diabetes mellitus is due to herbicide exposure during his service, to include service along the perimeter of Udorn RTAFB. As the Board is finding that he was exposed to an herbicide agent from his service along the base perimeter in Thailand, which results in a full grant of his appeal for service connection for type II diabetes, the Board will not address service connection on presumptive basis under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act, Pub. L. No. 117-168 § 3373, 136 Stat. 1759 (2022), which would result in a later effective date, and therefore, a lesser benefit.

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Generally, service connection requires (1) the existence of a present disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Certain chronic diseases, including type II diabetes mellitus, may be presumptively service connected if they become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year of leaving qualifying military service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. If a condition listed as a chronic disease in § 3.309(a) is noted during service, but is either shown not to be chronic or the diagnosis could be legitimately
 incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Certain chronic diseases, including type II diabetes mellitus, may be presumptively service connected if they become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year of leaving qualifying military service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. If a condition listed as a chronic disease in § 3.309(a) is noted during service, but is either shown not to be chronic or the diagnosis could be legitimately questioned, then a showing of continuity of related symptomatology after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Veterans who, during active 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 to an herbicide agent unless there is affirmative evidence of non-exposure. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). Certain disabilities associated with exposure to herbicide agents are considered to have been incurred in or aggravated by service if they become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service. Presumptive service connection based on herbicide agent exposure is available for type II diabetes mellitus.

VA policy provides that if a veteran served in the United States Air Force in Thailand during the Vietnam era at U-Tapao, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom, Udorn, Takhli, Korat or Don Muang RTAFB or at an Army base in Thailand as a security policeman, security patrol dog handler, member of a security police squadron, or otherwise served near the air base perimeter, as shown by military occupational specialty, performance evaluations, or other credible evidence, herbicide agent exposure should be conceded on a facts-found or direct basis.

Here, the AOJ favorably found that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of type II diabetes mellitus, which is among the diseases which VA presumes to be associated with in-service exposure to certain herbicide agents, such as Agent Orange. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Thus, the dispositive issue is whether the Veteran served near the Udorn RTAFB perimeter while he was stationed there.

In a May 2016 statement, the Veteran asserted that he was assigned to the 7th Radio Research Field Station at Ramasun, located about 12 miles away from Udorn RTAFB. He stated that his barracks were near the Ramasun base perimeter, and that his daily job activities required him to cross the perimeter of Ramasun and Udorn RTAFB at least four times a day, utilizing the military police stations as the points of entry and exit. He also stated he was assigned to temporary duty at U-Tapao RTAFB. The Veteran also submitted a photograph showing his barracks positioned on the perimeter of Ramasun.

During the December 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he was stationed in Thailand, and that he worked as a radio intercept repairman, working on the equipment on airplanes. He stated that he worked on the air base for five to six days a week, for over six months, commuting 12 miles from his barracks onto the air base. 

The Veteran's service personnel records confirm that his military occupational specialty was "Intcp Rec Sys Rpmn," with the 7th Radio Research Field Station and that he had duties in Udorn and U-Tapao.

Based on the above, the Board finds the evidence is at least in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran's duties placed him near the perimeter of Udorn RTAFB during his service. Moreover, the Veteran is competent to describe the circumstances of his service at Udorn RTAFB, including traversing the border multiple times a day, and the Board finds his statements to be credible. 

There is no evidence which impeaches his statements regarding frequent contact with the Udorn base perimeter, and his presence in the vicinity and statements establish herbicide agent exposure. Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124, 128 (2002) (holding that corroboration of every factual detail is not necessary where there is independent evidence sufficient to imply personal exposure). Thus, as the Veteran's lay statements are both competent and credible in this regard, the evidence is at least approximately balanced on the question at issue
 Moreover, the Veteran is competent to describe the circumstances of his service at Udorn RTAFB, including traversing the border multiple times a day, and the Board finds his statements to be credible. 

There is no evidence which impeaches his statements regarding frequent contact with the Udorn base perimeter, and his presence in the vicinity and statements establish herbicide agent exposure. Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124, 128 (2002) (holding that corroboration of every factual detail is not necessary where there is independent evidence sufficient to imply personal exposure). Thus, as the Veteran's lay statements are both competent and credible in this regard, the evidence is at least approximately balanced on the question at issue. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran. Therefore, the Board concludes that the Veteran's service placed him on the perimeter of Udorn RTAFB, Thailand, and that he was exposed to herbicide agents on a facts-found basis. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Accordingly, as type II diabetes mellitus is presumed service connected in veterans who were exposed to herbicide agents, entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is granted.

As a final matter, the Board wishes to underscore that the allowance outlined above was not based upon application of the PACT Act, and thus, the AOJ's implementation of the Board's allowance, particularly the assignment of the effective date for this award, shall be made without consideration of the PACT Act.   

 

Scott W. Dale

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A.Z., 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.