ARTERIOSCLEROTIC HEART DISEASE (CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE)

Summary

The veteran served in the U.S. Air Force from March 1966 to January 1970. He appeals the denial of service connection for coronary artery disease, hypertension, and stroke, claiming these conditions are due to herbicide exposure during his service at Kadena Air Force Base in Japan. The Board reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision, noting that any later-submitted evidence would require a Supplemental Claim. The veteran's VA treatment records confirmed current diagnoses of coronary artery disease, hypertension, and cerebral infarction. However, the Board found insufficient evidence to establish herbicide exposure. While the veteran served in Kadena Air Force Base, Japan, this location does not carry a presumption of herbicide exposure. The veteran's representative argued that prior Board decisions for other veterans could serve as de facto "buddy statements" to establish exposure, but the Board clarified that prior decisions are not precedential and cannot substitute for evidence in the veteran's own claims file. The Board also considered the veteran's deposition and statements, along with articles about contamination in Okinawa, but found them insufficient to establish herbicide exposure on a facts-found basis. A VA examination concluded that the veteran's exposure to jet fuels and associated chemicals was not related to his claimed conditions. The Board denied service connection for all three conditions, finding the evidence weighed against the claim.

Rationale

No evidence of herbicide exposure; No other basis for service connection found

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040549
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250915-586469
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease ("heart disability") is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for stroke is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2. The Veteran's coronary artery disease, hypertension, and stroke did not have their onset during service and were not otherwise related to an in-service event, injury, or disease. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for coronary artery disease are not met.38 U.S.C. §§1110, 5103, 5103A; 38 C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.309, 3.310. 

2. The criteria for service connection for hypertension are not met.38 U.S.C. §§1110, 5103, 5103A; 38 C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.309, 3.310. 

3. The criteria for service connection for stroke are not met.38 U.S.C. §§1110, 5103, 5103A; 38 C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.309, 3.310. 

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active service from March 1966 to January 1970.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in August 2025 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In the September 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

1. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease is denied.

2. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied.

3. Entitlement to service connection for stroke is denied.

The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, hypertension, and stroke due to claimed exposure to herbicide agents during service.

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).

Service connection may also be established on a presumptive basis for certain enumerated diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent, such as Agent Orange, during service. Hypertension and coronary artery disease are listed diseases presumed to be due to herbicide agent exposure, absent affirmative evidence to the contrary. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). Although veterans who served in Vietnam and certain other locations during the Vietnam era are presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents, the Veteran in this case served in Japan. There is no presumption of exposure to herbicide agents, such as Agent Orange, for veterans who served in Japan
38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent, such as Agent Orange, during service. Hypertension and coronary artery disease are listed diseases presumed to be due to herbicide agent exposure, absent affirmative evidence to the contrary. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e). Although veterans who served in Vietnam and certain other locations during the Vietnam era are presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents, the Veteran in this case served in Japan. There is no presumption of exposure to herbicide agents, such as Agent Orange, for veterans who served in Japan at any time.

Even if the regulations for herbicide agent exposure on a presumptive basis are not met, a claimant may alternatively establish herbicide agent exposure on a direct basis from the evidence of record. 38 U.S.C. § 1113 (b).

The Veteran's VA treatment records show a diagnosis of coronary artery disease, hypertension and cerebral infarction; thus the first element of service connection is satisfied.

The Veteran alleges that he was exposed to herbicide agents while service at Kadena Air Force Base from July 1968 to October 1968. 

The AOJ obtained an individual longitudinal exposure record (ILER) and a Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) Memorandum in June 2025. The ILER and TERA Memorandum show that there is no record of the Veteran being exposed to herbicide agents, but confirms his likely exposure to JP8, JP5, and other jet fuels, as well as their combustion by products, chemicals, and solvents used in the maintenance and repair of jet engines. 

The AOJ then obtained a TERA examination. The June 2025 VA examiner considered the total potential exposure through all applicable military deployments of the Veteran and the synergistic, combined effect of all toxic exposure risk activities of the Veteran. The examiner opined that the Veteran's exposure to JP8, JP5, and other jet fuels, as well as their combustion by products, chemicals, and solvents used in the maintenance and repair of jet engines was not related to his hypertension, coronary artery disease, or stroke. 

The Veteran's representative argued that in prior decisions for other veterans, the Board has found herbicide agent exposure on a facts-found basis, and that the Board should use those prior decisions as de facto "buddy statements" to establish herbicide agent exposure for the Veteran.

First, as the Veteran's representative acknowledges, Previous Board decisions are not precedential and are not binding on Board decisions in other cases. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 (2013); McDowell v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 207, 228 (2009).

Second, the Board cannot use the prior Board decisions as de facto "buddy statements," as Board decisions are not evidence. The evidence used to make the factual findings is not in claims file for review in this matter. Even if the evidence was available for review, it would need to be particular to the facts and circumstances of the Veteran's individual service before it could be considered by the Board in this matter. As the evidence is not available for review, the Board is unable to use the prior Board decisions as de facto "buddy statements" in this matter. 

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran also submitted several articles regarding contamination in Kadena, Okinawa. See October 2022 Correspondence and August 2023 Correspondence. However, the articles do not state that there were herbicide agents in 1968, the time when the Veteran was stationed in Kadena Air Force Base (from July 1968 to October 1968). See October 2022 Military Personnel Record.

The Board also acknowledges the Veteran's December 2022 deposition and August 2022 statement. The Veteran reported spending approximately 90 days at Kadena Air Force Base. The Veteran reported that the climate in Okinawa was almost tropical but that there was not as much vegetation as he expected to see in that area. He said he saw people spraying around the barracks and that there was no foliage around the area of the barracks, around a runway, and near the base gate. 

The Board finds that the evidence in the claims file, to include the articles and testimony submitted by the Veteran, is insufficient for the Board to find on a facts-found basis that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while he served on Kadena Air Force Base. Therefore, the positive nexus opinion submitted by the Veteran in July 2023, which is premised upon the contention that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while serving at Kadena Air Force Base, is not probative. 

Having found that the Veteran was not exposed to herbicide agents during his service
 area. He said he saw people spraying around the barracks and that there was no foliage around the area of the barracks, around a runway, and near the base gate. 

The Board finds that the evidence in the claims file, to include the articles and testimony submitted by the Veteran, is insufficient for the Board to find on a facts-found basis that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while he served on Kadena Air Force Base. Therefore, the positive nexus opinion submitted by the Veteran in July 2023, which is premised upon the contention that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while serving at Kadena Air Force Base, is not probative. 

Having found that the Veteran was not exposed to herbicide agents during his service, the Board is unable to grant service connection for coronary artery disease, hypertension, or stroke due to exposure to herbicide agents.

In addition, the evidence does not show that the Veteran's disabilities manifested during service or within an applicable presumptive period after service. There is also no competent opinion indicating that the Veteran's disabilities may otherwise be related to his service and neither the Veteran, nor his representative has alluded to the existence of any such evidence.

Therefore, the most probative evidence of record is the June 2025 VA examiner's opinion, because it is based on an accurate history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data.  Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).

For the foregoing reasons, the evidence is against this claim and entitlement to service connection claim for coronary artery disease, hypertension, or stroke, must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

 

 

Melanie J. Mann

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Boal, 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.