The Veteran's claims for service connection for ischemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus type II, both claimed as due to in-service Agent Orange exposure, are being remanded for further development. The AOJ is instructed to verify the Veteran's alleged Agent Orange exposure, particularly between July 6, 1966 and August 29, 1966, and determine if he had 'regular and repeated contact' with C-123 aircraft so as to warrant a finding of likely in-service herbicides exposure, to include Agent Orange. The AOJ should also obtain any outstanding VA treatment records since December 2015.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's service personnel records indicate he served on Nakhon Phanom Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB) from July 1966 to July 1967, and between July 6, 1966 and August 29, 1966, he served with the 606th Air Control Squadron as an aircraft pneudraulic repairman for C-123 aircraft. However, JSRRC could not confirm whether the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange due to his service at Nakhon Phanom RTAFB.
- Claimed conditions
- ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus type II
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Agent Orange / herbicides
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- October 12, 2017
- Citation
- 1745263
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 1745263.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a heart condition, including ischemic heart disease. The evidence did not support a finding of a current disability related to service.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, ischemic heart disease, right lower extremity peripheral artery disease, left lower extremity peripheral artery disease, and hypertension as the evidence did not establish an in-service event or exposure to herbicide agents.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's claim for a heart disability prior to his death is granted as he was entitled to accrued benefits due to the September 1994 claim, which included ischemic heart disease, a covered herbicide disease.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.