ARTERIOSCLEROTIC HEART DISEASE (CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE)

Summary

The Veteran, a Navy Veteran who served from July 1974 to January 2002, appeals the denial of service connection for ischemic heart disease. The Veteran claims the condition is due to herbicide exposure during service aboard the USS Chanticleer and USS Mataco. The Board noted that the AOJ previously made favorable findings regarding the Veteran's current ischemic heart disease diagnosis and eligibility for presumptive service connection based on herbicide exposure. While VA records and a Records Research Response indicated no evidence of herbicide exposure, the Board found sufficient credible evidence to establish the Veteran as a Blue Water Navy Veteran. This conclusion was based on the Veteran's service records confirming duty on the USS Chanticleer and USS Mataco, receipt of the Vietnam Service Medal with a bronze star, and the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with a gold star. The Veteran also testified that receiving these medals required service on the landmass, brown water, or blue water of Vietnam. The Board found this evidence sufficient to grant presumptive service connection for ischemic heart disease under the Blue Water Navy Act of 2019 and 38 U.S.C. § 1116A. Service connection for ischemic heart disease is granted.

Rationale

Current ischemic heart disease diagnosis.; Qualifying service in the Republic of Vietnam.; Presumptive link to herbicide exposure under 38 U.S.C. § 1116A.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040465
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 220830-273992
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's current ischemic heart disease is presumptively related to his herbicide agent exposure due to qualifying service in the Republic of Vietnam.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 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 in the United States Navy from July 1974 January 2002.

Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease is granted.

The Veteran seeks service connection for ischemic heart disease due to herbicide exposure while on the USS Chanticleer and USS Mataco.

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 served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era is presumed to have been exposed during to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(iii). The Vietnam era is the period beginning on February 28, 1961, and ending on May 7, 1975, for Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam, and the period beginning on February 28, 1961, and ending on May 7, 1975, in all other cases. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (29)(A). Service in the Republic of Vietnam is "service in the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam." 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). VA has interpreted this regulation to require "the service member's presence at some point on the landmass or the inland waters of Vietnam" for entitlement to a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange. Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 1002(2009). Furthermore, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held in 2019 that service in the Republic of Vietnam includes service in the territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam. See Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The holding in Procopio was further codified in the Blue Water Navy Act of 2019. 38 U.S.C. § 1116A(c). Service on a U.S. Navy vessel may qualify as duty or visitation in Vietnam, as long as the Veteran set foot on land or the vessel nevertheless was in the inland waterways or territorial waters of the Republic of Vietnam. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii); Haas, 525 F.3d at 1195, 1197; Gray v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 313 (2015); Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

Under 38 U.S.C. § 1116B, a Veteran who developed a disease recognized as presumptively related to herbicide exposure, and who served during active military, naval, or air service, in or near the DMZ, during the period beginning on September 1, 1967, and ending on August 31, 1971, shall be considered to have been incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service, notwithstanding that there is no record of evidence of such disease during the period of such service. See 38 U.S.C.
 Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

Under 38 U.S.C. § 1116B, a Veteran who developed a disease recognized as presumptively related to herbicide exposure, and who served during active military, naval, or air service, in or near the DMZ, during the period beginning on September 1, 1967, and ending on August 31, 1971, shall be considered to have been incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service, notwithstanding that there is no record of evidence of such disease during the period of such service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116B (2020). Once in-service exposure to an herbicide agent (either presumptive or actual) has been established, a Veteran may obtain service connection on a presumptive basis for any of the diseases found to be associated with such exposure.

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When a Veteran seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the Veteran prevails. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

In the May 2022 rating decision, the AOJ made the favorable findings that the Veteran had a current coronary artery disease diagnosis, he had sufficient service to meet the minimum requirements for presumptive service connection, and his diagnosed disability was a condition that has been presumptively linked to exposure. The Board is bound by these favorable findings.

Therefore, the remaining question before the Board is if the Veteran had qualifying service on the landmass or the inland waters of Vietnam.

The Board notes that VA made a formal finding that exposure to herbicides could not be conceded as the evidence of record did not show that the Veteran had duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam or on its inland waterways or nautical service in the offshore eligible waters as defined in the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019, Public Law 116-23. See January 2022 VA Memo. Similarly, a Records Research Response concluded that there was no evidence to support the Veteran's claimed herbicide exposure. See January 2022 Records Research Responses 1 and 2.

Nonetheless, there is evidence in favor of the claim that his service aboard the USS Chanticleer and USS Mataco involved service in the territorial waters of the RVN. The Veteran's records confirm that the Veteran was stationed on the USS Chanticleer from September 1972 to May 1973 and on the USS Mataco from May 1973 to July 1973. See Military Personnel Record. Additionally, the Veteran was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal with 1 bronze star and the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with gold star. See DD-214, Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty. VA has acknowledged that there are missing deck logs from when the Veteran was on the USS Chanticleer. See Records Research Response. Additionally, the Veteran testified that the criteria for receiving the Vietnam Service Medal, which he received two of, required the Veteran to be on the ground of Vietnam, in the Brown Water of Vietnam, or in the Blue Water of Vietnam. See Hearing Transcript. 

Therefore, the Board finds sufficient credible evidence that the Veteran is a Blue Water Navy Veteran who is entitled to the benefit of the presumptions of 38 U.S.C. § 1116A to establish presumptive service connection for diseases associated with herbicide exposure in Vietnam.

(Continued on the next page)

?

In this case, the Veteran has been diagnosed with ischemic heart disease. As noted in 38 U.S.C. § 1116A, ischemic heart disease is a disease that has been associated with herbicide exposure in Vietnam. Therefore, the Board concludes that the Veteran's ischemic heart disease is related to his period of active duty aboard the USS Chanticleer and USS Mataco, and the claim of service connection for ischemic heart disease is granted.

 

 

T. Raymond

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Ho, Ashley M.

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
 Veteran has been diagnosed with ischemic heart disease. As noted in 38 U.S.C. § 1116A, ischemic heart disease is a disease that has been associated with herbicide exposure in Vietnam. Therefore, the Board concludes that the Veteran's ischemic heart disease is related to his period of active duty aboard the USS Chanticleer and USS Mataco, and the claim of service connection for ischemic heart disease is granted.

 

 

T. Raymond

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Ho, Ashley M.

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.