Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Bva Grants Diabetes - Ao - Secondary Exposure - Ft Mcclellan

Rate this question


carlie

Question

Very interesting BVA - claim granted - Diabetes Mellitus Type II - Secondary to Herbicide Exposure

at Ft McClellan.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/Files4/1132526.txt

Citation Nr: 1132526

Decision Date: 09/02/11 Archive Date: 09/12/11

DOCKET NO. 08-25 924

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as secondary to herbicide exposure.

Factual Background and Analysis

Dr. W.D.G. concluded that the activities of cleaning equipment used in the storage, transport, use and dissemination of Agent Orange at Fort McClellan in 1972 could have exposed a chemical equipment repairman to the oily substance of Agent Orange. The possibility of any exposure to dioxin at Fort McClellan was based on the Veteran's type of unit and duties and the fact that Fort McClellan in general has been a site subjected to numerous environmental contamination complaints and investigations.

Dr. W.D.G. stated that the fact that the Veteran had a serum dioxin level of 5.700 parts per trillion (PPT) is evidence of exposure, although not necessarily from a military-related exposure. However, he found it very possible that the Veteran was engaged in activities at Fort McClellan in 1972 as a chemical equipment repairman that would have put him in direct contact with Agent Orange. Because the Veteran has diabetes mellitus, type II, and it is presumed that diabetes is related to exposure to Agent Orange, Dr. W.D.G. opined that it was as least as likely as not that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II, is etiologically related to his period of active service.

Based upon a review of all the evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as secondary to herbicide exposure, is warranted in this case. Initially, the Board notes that since the Veteran concedes that he never served on the land within the borders of the Republic of Vietnam, he is not eligible for presumptive service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, based on exposure to herbicides under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(a)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). See Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding foot-on-land rule to be permissible statutory interpretation), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1002 (2009).

Though this presumptive theory for service connection is not in his favor, because the Veteran never actually served within the borders of Vietnam, service connection on a direct basis is still available. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As the Veteran currently is diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, type II, the first requirement for direct service connection is met as the Veteran has been diagnosed with a current disability.

Regarding the second requirement for establishing service connection on a direct basis, service treatment records, including his discharge examination, are negative for any reference to a diagnosed diabetic condition. However, the Board finds competent and credible the lay evidence presented as to the origin or onset of the Veteran's diabetic disease. Viewing the evidence most favorably in favor of the Veteran, the origin or onset of his diabetes occurred in 1972, during his first year of active duty, when he was exposed to herbicides from September 1972 to December 1972 while stationed at Fort McClellan, Alabama, with the Army Chemical Corps while on AIT. He testified that he repaired chemical equipment returned from Vietnam that had been exposed to herbicides, including flame throwers, and transported chemicals.

ORDER

Service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as secondary to herbicide exposure, is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the award of monetary benefits.

Carlie passed away in November 2015 she is missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

0 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

There have been no answers to this question yet

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • alexpainter earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Lebro earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • catyvaz1 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • AFguy1999 earned a badge
      First Post
    • AFguy1999 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use