Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • hohomepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • 27-year-anniversary-leaderboard.png

    advice-disclaimer.jpg

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Certain Thailand Vets

Rate this question


Berta

Question

"It is now clear that all dog handler and security police claims based on exposure to herbicides at Air Force bases in Thailand are to be sent to C&P Service for review. "

From Colonel Dan-

due to VA Fast Letter 09=20-

and the extreme efforts of Kurt Priessman, hadit member and SVR member,

-this is a victory for some Thailand vets who have AO claims pending.

Also Marilyn Oliver, SVR guest tonight ,was helpful to Kurt in getting this Fast Letter prepared by the VA.

August2009C_PBulletin.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I think a major issue with Thai Vets and Agent Orange is the latest Agent Orange CRS (Congressional Review Summary) which is what members of congress read to get a summary of a topic under discussion does not have the word in its approx 25 pages.  Plenty of Info on Navy Blue water but no mention of Thailand.  Congress is totally uninformed-This report was written in Nov 2014 or about 5 years after the VA acknowledged tactical herbicide use supposedly ONLY on or NEAR the perimeters of Thai bases.  With no definition of NEAR.  It could be 5 feet or a mile or something else.  Here is the link to the Agent Orange and Vets CSR:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43790.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The VA rests heavily on the veteran's Thailand service MOS.

Yes- I agree that the word "near" is problematic, and also used in the Korea AO DMZ regs and also explained as "in close proximity to" in the 2010 PTSD regulations.

We have plenty of info here on Thailand AO .

If a vet's MOS was Security Police, dog handler, etc obviously they had perimeter duty and could have been exposed to AO.

James Cripps, first AO CONUS vet, had a different MOS...but be sure to check out his stuff here too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Here are a few posts....many more here on AO outside of Vietnam to include Thailand:

http://www.hadit.com/james-cripps-was-the-first-conus-ao-claim-winner/

http://community.hadit.com/topic/68442-cck-uncovers-memo-used-by-va-to-wrongly-deny-ao-claims-of-thailand-veterans/?page=2#comment-421720

http://community.hadit.com/topic/64243-thailand-vet-agent-orange-denial/?page=6

Matt Hill , who I believe might have replied to one of them ( he was reading the CCK post a few weeks ago here but the site went down..)

is a lawyer who represents veterans and is involved in the AO issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

One more point:

http://community.hadit.com/topic/68445-ao-usaf-andton-son-nhut/

The spelling is wrong in this link...It is Tan Son Nhut and this possible stopover to Thailand or from Thailand for some vets was incountry---- Vietnam.

I think Tan Son Nhut is near Saigon (HCM City)

I guess most vets would want to visit a head or something when planes made a pit stop,and you only need one boot on ground, Vietnam, to be exposed to AO.

(99% have 2 boots on ground but one of my vets had only one boot, we proved it, and he reversed a proposed reduction of his AO comp)

Nothing is impossible!

I

 

Edited by Berta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Please  read the post I made this AM re: Thailand AO CAVC Presedent decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The VA says service documents (Discharge, rating, etc) must say they served on the perimeter.

While there's lots available on Royal Thai herbicide use, and I'll add FM3-3 (p5-5 IIRC), they ignore all that, and demand the absurd;

These types of documents would never describe you sitting on a vehicle on Udorn's perimeter everyday waiting to rearm incoming aircraft. That's not their purpose.

(please note, JRRC says tactical herbicide was only used on Royal Thai posts early in the war. Red Herring. Presumptive was granted because of the amount of commercial herbicide applied at full strength)

They'll, unfortunately, do the same with the precedent. Just demand proof you did land at Tan Son Nhut. Excellent find, Berta!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will say there are many, many Veterans asking for herbicide presumptive from service on Royal Thai posts. There had to be something going on. Very sad.

Edited by MikeHunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use