--- title: "Part VIII, Subpart i, Chapter 1, Section C Ratings for Disabilities Associated With Herbicide Exposure" document: "M-21-1" section: "Part VIII, Subpart i, Chapter 1, Section C" canonical: "https://veteranai.co/va-regulations/m21-1/viii.i.1.c-ratings-for-disabilities-associated-with-herbicide-exposure" source: "https://www.knowva.ebenefits.va.gov/system/templates/selfservice/va_ssnew/help/customer/locale/en-US/portal/554400000001018/content/554400000308860/M21-1-Part-VIII-Subpart-i-Chapter-1-Section-C-Ratings-for-Disabilities-Associated-With-Herbicide-Exposure" updated: "2026-09-07T14:37:30.199075Z" --- September 15, 2025 ### VIII.i.1.C.1.a. Deciding Presumptive SC Based on Herbicide Exposure When deciding service connection (SC) for a disability due to herbicide exposure, consider if the evidence establishes * in-service exposure to an herbicide agent * the Veteran has a qualifying disability as listed in [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.A.1.f](), and when required, * the presumptive disability manifests to the required level of severity within the required manifestation period as discussed in M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.C.1.c and d. When these requirements are met, a presumption arises that the diagnosis is * related to the exposure, and * incurred in or aggravated by service. The presumption removes the need to prove a nexus between the current diagnosis and the in-service exposure. Therefore, when the evidence is sufficient for the presumption to arise, SC is established (assuming that generally applicable requirements such as Veteran status based on a qualifying discharge have been met) _unless_ other evidence rebuts the presumption. _**Important**_ : * When deciding these claims, it is important that claims processors note which authority applies to the claim and explain the basis of the decision, citing the relevant regulation(s) or statute(s), as required. * Centralized processing is required for the concession of herbicide exposure in some cases as described in [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.A.1.d](). _**References**_ : For more information on * centralized processing of rating and authorization activities in herbicide claims, see M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.C.1.j * rebutting the presumption by affirmative evidence to the contrary, see M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.C.1.b * herbicide rating decision requirements, see M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.C.1.i, and * presumptive herbicide disabilities, see [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.A.1.f](). ### VIII.i.1.C.1.b. Rebutting Presumption by Affirmative Evidence to the Contrary The presumption of a nexus between a disability listed in [38 CFR 3.309(e)]() or [38 U.S.C. 1116]() established in-service exposure to an herbicide agent can be rebutted by evidence that the disability was not caused by the exposure.The standard in [38 CFR 3.307(d)]() is _affirmative evidence to the contrary_. The regulation does not specifically define the standard but notes that it means less than conclusive proof and requires sound medical reasoning and consideration of all evidence of record.**Important:** * Although the regulation and statute permit rebuttal, in practice evidence will infrequently support it. * A conclusory medical statement that a condition listed in [38 CFR 3.309(e)]() or [38 U.S.C. 1116]() is not related to demonstrated or presumed herbicide exposure does not meet the sound medical reasoning requirement. There must be competent, credible, and persuasive medical evidence supported by all of the other pertinent evidence of record that the individual’s diagnosed disorder is more likely than not related to a specific non-service-related cause. **References:** For more information on * evaluating evidence, see [M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 1.A]() * requiring further development, see [M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 3.B.1.a](), and * the requirement for supporting medical conclusions with evidence in the claims folder, see [M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 1.A.3.f](). ### VIII.i.1.C.1.c. Manifestation Period for Presumptive Purposes Under 38 CFR 3.309(e) In order to establish presumptive SC, the following diseases listed in [38 CFR 3.309(e)]() must become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year of the _last date of exposure_ to herbicides * chloracne or other acne-form disease consistent with chloracne * porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT), and * early-onset peripheral neuropathy. **Notes:** * There is no time limit for the other listed presumptive diseases in [38 CFR 3.309(e)]() or [38 U.S.C. 1116](). * Previously, respiratory cancers (cancers of the lung, bronchus, larynx, and trachea) had to become manifest within 30 years of last exposure. _Public Law (PL) 107-103_ eliminated this requirement effective January 1, 2002. * For the purposes of establishing onset within the required manifestation period, the **_last date of herbicide exposure_** is the last date on which the Veteran served in a location associated with a presumption of herbicide exposure as listed in [38 U.S.C. 1116](). **Reference:** For more information on time limits for manifestation of diseases subject to presumptive SC, see * [38 CFR 3.307(a)(6)(ii)](), and * [38 U.S.C. 1116(a)(2)](). ### VIII.i.1.C.1.d. Required Degree of Disability for Presumptive Herbicide Disabilities To qualify for presumptive SC based on herbicide exposure, [38 U.S.C. 1116]() and [38 CFR 3.307(a)(6)]() require certain disabilities to manifest to a specific level of severity.The following disabilities must manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within any applicable manifestation period as discussed in M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.C.1.c: * AL amyloidosis * chloracne or other acne-form disease consistent with chloracne * Type 2 diabetes mellitus * Hodgkin's disease * Ischemic heart disease (IHD) * chronic B-cell leukemias * multiple myeloma * non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) * Parkinson's disease * early-onset peripheral neuropathy * PCT * prostate cancer * respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea), and * soft-tissue sarcoma. **Exception:** The following presumptive disabilities are not required to manifest to a specific degree of disability: * parkinsonism * bladder cancer * hypothyroidism * hypertension, and * monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). ### VIII.i.1.C.1.e. Considering Direct SC When Entitlement to Presumption Does Not Exist If entitlement to presumptive SC based on herbicide exposure does not exist, consider entitlement to SC on a direct, facts-found basis under the toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) procedures._**Notes**_ : * Under [38 CFR 3.303(d)](), the presumptive provisions of the statute and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations implementing them are intended as liberalizations that allow for another basis of SC. Therefore, these provisions do _not_ preclude direct SC, where appropriate. * TERA procedures went into effect on August 10, 2022, under _PL 117-168_ , _Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022_. **References:** For more information on * TERA procedures, see the _[PACT Act Implementation Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)]()_ , and * conditions determined to have no positive association with herbicide exposure, see [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.B.1.g](). ### VIII.i.1.C.1.f. Date Disabilities Became Subject to Presumptive SC Based on Herbicide Exposure The table below shows the dates on which the diseases listed in [38 CFR 3.309(e)]() and [38 U.S.C. 1116]() became subject to presumptive SC based on herbicide exposure.| **Disability**| **Effective Date** * Chloracne or other acne-form disease consistent with chloracne, and * soft-tissue sarcoma, _other than_ * osteosarcoma * chondrosarcoma * Kaposi’s sarcoma, or * mesothelioma | February 6, 1991** _Note_** : Originally, September 25, 1985, under 38 CFR 3.311a. NHL| February 6, 1991** _Note_** : Originally, August 5, 1964, under 38 CFR 3.313. * PCT, and * Hodgkin’s disease | February 3, 1994 * Respiratory cancers of the * lung * bronchus * larynx, or * trachea, and * multiple myeloma | June 9, 1994 * Prostate cancer, and * acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy | November 7, 1996 Type 2 diabetes mellitus| May 8, 2001 Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)| October 16, 2003 AL amyloidosis| May 7, 2009 * IHD * chronic B-cell leukemia, and * Parkinson’s disease | August 31, 2010 Early-onset peripheral neuropathy| September 6, 2013 * Parkinsonism * bladder cancer, and * hypothyroidism. **Reference:** For more information on presumptive SC for these disabilities, see * _PL 116-283_ , _William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021_ , and * [ _Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Letter 20-21-07, Processing Guidance for Claims and Appeals for New Agent Orange Presumptive Conditions_](). | January 1, 2021 * MGUS, and * hypertension | August 10, 2022 ** _Important_** : The table above includes reference to acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy becoming subject to presumptive SC on November 7, 1996, for historical purposes. The covered disease was revised to early-onset peripheral neuropathy by change effective September 6, 2013. For claims on or after September 6, 2013, entitlement to presumptive SC based on peripheral neuropathy only exists when the Veteran meets qualifying service requirements specified at [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.A.1.c]() and medical evidence establishes a confirmed diagnosis of early-onset peripheral neuropathy. **Note:** Unless an earlier effective date is determined pursuant to the _Nehmer_ stipulation under [38 CFR 3.816]() or _PL 116-23, Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019_ (BWN law) under [38 U.S.C. 1116A](), the provisions pertaining to retroactive payment under [38 CFR 3.114(a)]() apply. **Reference:** For more information on the * _Nehmer_ stipulation, see * [38 CFR 3.816]() * [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 2.B](), and * the [_Nehmer Training Guide_](), and * BWN law, see [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.D](). ### VIII.i.1.C.1.g. Processing Claims Based on Early-Onset Peripheral Neuropathy A change to [38 CFR 3.307(a)(6)]() and [38 CFR 3.309(e)]() ([78 FR 54763]()) effective September 6, 2013, removed requirements that neuropathy must resolve within two years. Do not deny presumptive SC for early-onset peripheral neuropathy solely because the condition persisted for more than two years after initial diagnosis.**Important:** * The regulatory amendment does not change that peripheral neuropathy must manifest to a compensable degree of 10 percent or more within one year of the date of last herbicide exposure during active military, naval, or air service. * Claims of SC for later-occurring onset of peripheral neuropathy can only be evaluated under other bases (for example, direct or secondary). The National Academy of Science (NAS) has determined that evidence does not support an association between herbicide exposure and delayed-onset peripheral neuropathy, which NAS defined as having its onset more than one year after exposure. ### VIII.i.1.C.1.h. Metastasis of a Cancer and Presumptive SC Based on Herbicide Exposure Do not establish presumptive SC on the basis of herbicide exposure for a cancer listed in [38 CFR 3.309(e)]() or [38 U.S.C. 1116]() when medical evidence factually shows that the cancer developed as the result of metastasis of a cancer located at a primary site that is not recognized by the VA as associated with herbicide exposure.**Note:** Such evidence constitutes affirmative evidence to rebut the presumption of SC based on herbicide exposure. ### VIII.i.1.C.1.i. Herbicide Rating Decision Requirements Follow existing guidance in [M21-1, Part V, Subpart iv, 1.A]() to generate a rating decision that explains the basis of any decision. In addition to system-generated text, decision makers should use glossary fragments or free text, when applicable, to fully explain the basis of each decision.When deciding a claim based on presumptive herbicide exposure, apply the guidelines in the table below in addition to the general reasons for decision requirements outlined in [M21-1, Part V, Subpart iv, 1.A.5.a]().**Exception:** For claims based on nautical herbicide exposure, follow the rating guidelines outlined in [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.D.4.b]().| **If ...**| **Then ...** awarding SC| apply the relevant effective date rules as outlined in M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.C.4.a. denying SC| list the herbicide exposure or qualifying diagnosis as a favorable finding, if applicable. awarding SC based on herbicide exposure through contaminated C-123 aircraft| include the following in the rating decision narrative:_The evidence of record shows that you were exposed to herbicides through regular and repeated duties operating, maintaining, or serving onboard contaminated C-123 aircraft used to spray herbicide agents in Vietnam._ denying SC based on herbicide exposure through contaminated C-123 aircraft| include the following in the rating decision narrative:_VA evaluates claims for service connection based on C-123 herbicide exposure on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the evidence is insufficient for VA to acknowledge herbicide exposure. _ _**References**_ : For more information on * the relevant authority for presumptive herbicide * exposure, see [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.A.1.c](), and * disabilities, see [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.A.1.f](), and * processing C-123 claims, see [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.B.3](). ### VIII.i.1.C.1.j. Centralized Processing for Rating and Authorization of Herbicide Claims Centralized processing of the rating and authorization activities is required for certain herbicide claims. These include cases with * explicit or implicit claims of Republic of Vietnam (RVN)-based nautical service, and * no in-country service at a presumptive herbicide location, or * a previously denied claim based on no qualifying service * service in the RVN, _and_ potential _Nehmer_ applicability under [38 CFR 3.816](), or * herbicide exposure through contaminated C-123 aircraft. **References:** For more information on * explicit or implicit claims of RVN-based nautical service, see [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.D.3.a](), and * claims requiring centralized processing for research of herbicide exposure, see [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.A.1.d](). 2. Considering SC for Disabilities Associated With Service in the RVN This topic contains information on considering SC for disabilities associated with service in the RVN, including * SC for NHL under 38 CFR 3.313 based on service in the RVN during the Vietnam era, and * subcategories of NHL qualifying for presumptive SC. December 4, 2023 ### VIII.i.1.C.2.a. SC for NHL Under 38 CFR 3.313 Based on Service in the RVN During the Vietnam Era VA regulations at [38 CFR 3.313]() provide for a presumption of SC for NHL based on service in the RVN during the Vietnam era. **Important:** * Exposure to herbicides is not a prerequisite for entitlement under [38 CFR 3.313](). The claimant needs only to show service in the RVN, which includes the waters offshore. * If a claim for NHL under [38 CFR 3.313]() requires research of RVN nautical service, it must be referred for centralized processing as noted in [M21-1, VIII, Subpart i, 1.A.1.d](). _**Reference**_ : For more information on presumptive SC for NHL based on presumptive herbicide exposure, see * [38 CFR 3.309(e)](), and * M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.C.1.f. ### VIII.i.1.C.2.b. Subcategories of NHL Qualifying for Presumptive SC When [38 CFR 3.313]() was promulgated, the U.S. Center for Disease Control identified a number of subcategories that are manifestations of NHL.Extend the presumption of SC to a Veteran who claims SC for NHL if * the Veteran had service in the RVN during the Vietnam era, including naval service in the offshore waters of the RVN, and * the medical evidence shows a diagnosis of any of the subcategories of low, intermediate, or high-grade lymphoma listed in the table below. | **Low Grade Lymphoma**| **Intermediate Grade Lymphoma**| **High Grade Lymphoma** Small lymphocytic with plasmacytoid features| Diffuse, small and large| Diffuse, small and large Small lymphocytic lymphoma and B-cell CLL** _Note_** : Small lymphocytic lymphoma and B-cell CLL are considered slightly different forms of the same disease.| Diffuse, small cleaved| Lymphoblastic Intermediate cell| Diffuse, large cleaved| Immunoblastic Follicular, mixed small and large| Diffuse, large non-cleaved| Burkitt’s Mantle zone| Diffuse, large| \--- Follicular, small cleaved| Follicular, large| \--- Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia| \---| \--- Mycosis fungoides** _Reference_** : For more information on considering claims for SC for mycosis fungoides, see [M21-1, Part V, Subpart iii, 10.4.c]().| \---| \--- ## 3. Impact of Historical Herbicide Exposure Policies This topic contains information on the impact of historical herbicide exposure policies, including * overview of historical policies regarding herbicide exposure and nautical service, and * benefits previously awarded under historical policies. September 15, 2025 ### VIII.i.1.C.3.a. Overview of Historical Policies Regarding Herbicide Exposure and Nautical Service The table below represents time periods during which VA had specific policies in place regarding concessions of herbicide exposure, including those based on nautical service.| **Guidance Time Period**| **Exposure Policy** pre-_Haas_ (1991-2002)| Exposure conceded based on receipt of the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). 2002| Removed concession for VSM from M21-1 guidance. April 2005 – August 2022| Fact sheet regarding storage of Agent Orange on Johnston Island added to the M21-1. Exposure established on a factual basis. _Fast Letter (FL) 06-26_ (December 11, 2006)| All blue water Navy claims stayed based on the _Haas_ decision. _Haas_ stay lifted, _FL 09-07_ (February 6, 2009)| Exposure conceded based on review of military records for * inland waterways service of the RVN, or * service on a ship that docked, if the Veteran provided a lay statement of going ashore. July 2009 – August 2022| Facts-found concessions of herbicide exposure in Thailand based on M21-1 procedures. _Training Letter 10-06_ (September 9, 2010)| Concession based on categories of ships on the _Navy and Coast Guard Ships Associated with Service in Vietnam and Exposure to Herbicide Agents_ , a.k.a., the Ships List. Veterans Service Center Manager (VSCM) Call (January 2011)| Ships List updated with Category IV, _Ships operating on Vietnam’s close coastal waters for extended periods with evidence that crew members went ashore_ (lay statement of going ashore required). VSCM Call (May 2011)| Ships List updated with Category V, _Ships operating on Vietnam’s close coastal waters for extended periods with evidence that smaller craft from the ship regularly delivered supplies or troops ashore_ (lay statement of going ashore required). _PL 116-23_ (January 1, 2020)| Definition of service in the RVN expanded to include eligible offshore waters. Use of the Ships List discontinued and replaced with VBA’s internal claims processing tools used to determine a ship’s location(s). PACT Act (August 10, 2022)| Expanded presumptive herbicide exposure to additional nautical locations by amending [38 U.S.C. 1116](). ### VIII.i.1.C.3.b. Benefits Previously Awarded Under Historical Policies When reviewing initial or supplemental claims decided under historical herbicide exposure policies, **_do not_** * propose to sever SC for the disabilities previously awarded when the presumption of herbicide exposure was conceded under former policies, or * concede herbicide exposure for any newly claimed disabilities unless evidence is presented that otherwise establishes the Veteran’s exposure based on current evidentiary requirements. **Important:** * Before deciding any initial or supplemental claim based on herbicide exposure, always apply the most current standards and definitions of qualifying service and review all available records. * The protection noted above applies to SC for the disability awarded based on a historical policy. Once a disability has been service-connected (SC), even erroneously, and protection has attached, then the Veteran is entitled to increased evaluations for the disability, to SC for secondary conditions, and to awards of individual unemployability based solely or partly on those SC conditions. **References:** For more information on * protection of SC, see * [38 CFR 3.957](), and * [38 U.S.C. 1159]() * new interpretations of the law and clear and unmistakable error, see * [ _Berger v. Brown_](), 10 Vet. App. 166 (1997), and * [ _Jordan v. Nicholson_](), 401 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and * blue water Navy Veterans and herbicide exposure, see [_Haas v. Peake_](), 535 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 4. Effective Date Determinations in Herbicide Exposure Claims This topic contains information on effective date determinations in herbicide exposure claims, including * maximizing benefits with effective date determinations in herbicide claims * effective dates based on herbicide exposure and CFR 3.156(c) * determining applicability of 38 CFR 3.156(c) or 38 CFR 3.114 for exposure to herbicides in Korea, and * examples of determining an effective date in a claim based on herbicide exposure in Korea. September 15, 2025 ### VIII.i.1.C.4.a. Maximizing Benefits With Effective Date Determinations in Herbicide Claims When awarding SC for a disability based on presumptive herbicide exposure, different provisions allow for assignment of an effective date. In such cases, consider each effective date rule and assign the most advantageous effective date that applies for the facts of the case. Use the table below to determine which effective date rule may apply to an award of SC based on herbicide exposure.| **If ...**| **Then consider entitlement to an effective date under ...**| **Reference** the Veteran * served in the RVN, and * filed the claim prior to the date the presumptive disability was added to [38 CFR 3.309(e)]() or [38 U.S.C. 1116]() | [38 CFR 3.816]()._**Note**_ : Do not apply [38 CFR 3.816]() to herbicide claims that are awarded based on a new PACT Act provision.| [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 2.B]() the claimant met all eligibility criteria for a benefit on the effective date of a liberalizing law change as detailed in [M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 4.A.6.h]()| [38 CFR 3.114(a)]().| [M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 4.A.6]() the claimant is entitled to retroactive payment of benefits based on _PL 116-23_| [38 U.S.C. 1116A]().| [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.D.4]() * the claim was previously denied because available service records did not establish the Veteran had qualifying service, and * newly received service records establish service in a qualifying location | [38 CFR 3.156(c)]().| M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.C.4.b-d none of the above special provisions apply| * [38 CFR 3.400](), or * [38 CFR 3.2500](). | [M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 4.A](). ### VIII.i.1.C.4.b. Effective Dates Based on Herbicide Exposure and CFR 3.156(c) If a claim based on exposure to herbicides was previously denied because available service records did not establish the Veteran had qualifying service, decision makers must review any newly available service records to determine if new evidence of qualifying service exists. Reconsider the claim under [38 CFR 3.156(c)]() if newly received service records result in * presumption of herbicide exposure based on location of service, or * concession of herbicide exposure on a factual basis. As stated in [38 CFR 3.156(c)(3)](), if the evidence now justifies the establishment of SC, the effective date will be the later of * the date entitlement arose, or * the date VA received the previously decided claim. **Notes:** * The date entitlement arose may be either the * date the claimed disease was diagnosed (or symptoms became manifest according to medical evidence), or * the date the claimed presumptive disease was finalized as part of the presumptive list of herbicide exposure-related diseases in [38 CFR 3.309(e)]() or [38 U.S.C. 1116](). * Decision makers must also consider other applicable effective date provisions as outlined in M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.C.4.a. **Reference:** For more information on developing claims based on herbicide exposure, see [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.B](). ### VIII.i.1.C.4.c. Determining Applicability of 38 CFR 3.156(c) or 38 CFR 3.114 for Exposure to Herbicides in Korea Effective dates based on a grant of SC for a disability associated with exposure to herbicides in the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) can be affected by liberalizing changes and/or receipt of additional service department records. _Two_ liberalizing changes to the provisions of [38 CFR 3.307(a)(6)(iv)]() (as discussed more thoroughly in [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.B.4.b]()) have been made to revise the applicable dates for the concession of exposure to herbicides for Veterans who served in specific designated units operating in or near the Korean DMZ. When a claim for SC associated with exposure to herbicides in Korea was previously denied, but entitlement to the benefit is now established based on * expanded regulatory authority not in effect at the time of the prior decision, apply [38 CFR 3.114(a)]() if all other criteria for applicability are satisfied, or * new service records received from the service department that establish exposure based on the regulatory provision in place at the time of the previously adjudicated claim, apply [38 CFR 3.156(c)]() if all other criteria for applicability are satisfied. **References:** For more information on * considering additional service records, see [M21-1, Part X, Subpart ii, 2.B]() * assigning effective dates based on liberalizing regulatory changes, see * [38 CFR 3.114(a)](), and * [M21-1, Part V, Subpart ii, 4.A.6](), and * requirements for presumptive SC based on herbicide exposure in the Korean DMZ, see [M21-1, Part VIII, Subpart i, 1.B.4.a](). ### VIII.i.1.C.4.d. Examples of Determining an Effective Date in a Claim Based on Herbicide Exposure in Korea **Facts:** The Veteran previously claimed and was denied SC for prostate cancer due to herbicide exposure in Korea. The Veteran was notified of the denial on July 18, 2010. The service records at that time showed that the Veteran served in a designated unit in the Korean DMZ, but the dates of service were in October to November 1970. The Veteran has submitted a supplemental claim for SC for prostate cancer due to herbicide exposure in Korea. **Analysis:** The liberalizing law change of February 24, 2011, expanded the applicable dates for presumption of exposure for Veterans who served in a designated unit in the Korean DMZ to include dates of service through August 31, 1971. Since the Veteran’s service in 1970 falls within the designated time period, SC is now warranted. Given that SC is warranted based on the liberalizing law change expanding the applicable time period associated with Korean service, apply [38 CFR 3.114]() to assign an effective date one year prior to the date of receipt of the supplemental claim if all other criteria for applicability of this regulation are otherwise satisfied. **Facts:** The Veteran previously claimed and was denied SC for lung cancer due to herbicide exposure in Korea. The claim was received on March 12, 2015, and the Veteran was notified of the denial on August 22, 2015. The Veteran claimed to have been assigned on temporary duty orders to a designated unit in the DMZ during the spring of 1969. Development attempts were made for records of the Veteran’s assignments, and no evidence was received to verify the claimed service. In 2019, the Veteran submitted a supplemental claim with new and relevant evidence. Development for that claim revealed recently declassified records confirming that the Veteran was sent on temporary duty orders to a designated unit in the Korean DMZ in 1969. **Analysis:** Receipt of additional service records confirming service in a designated unit in the Korean DMZ in 1969 is sufficient to allow presumption of herbicide exposure under [38 CFR 3.307(a)(6)(iv)](). Assuming all other criteria are met, the prior denial of SC must be reconsidered and revised under [38 CFR 3.156(c)](). SC for lung cancer is warranted effective March 12, 2015.