9 posts in this topic

This is the VA PIES list of Navy occupations that are deemed by exposure to asbestos as minimal exposure up to highly probable.

The show tonight at SVR on asbestos will be important info as many many vets (whether Navy or not) were exposed to asbestos in service.I would think similiar MOS for any service branch would involve the same levels of exposure as in the VA PIES list for Navy occupations.

This list as far as I know has not changed since VA prepared it and the Office of General COunsel Pres Op of April 2004 is still relied on by the VA as definitive statement for these claims.

They require proof of asbestos exposure and medical evidence that establishes the nexus between the exposure and the veteran's current disability.There are no presumptives for asbestos claims.

Also here at hadit I have posted the VA training letter for asbestos.

It helped me significanty when I had a local asbestos vet's claim.He died unfortunately whle the claim was in process.

As John said this type of exposure can cause considerable medical ailments.

As the VA's own training letter states- cancers from asbestos exposure can take decades to show up.

Mesotheliamo and asbestosis are only a few of the serious medical consequences of asbestos exposure.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant find the training letter but know it is here somewhere-

In this link under the Ionizinng Radiation part is basically what the VA asbestos trainng letter requires as far as adjudication of these claims goes:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Berta, thanks for revisiting this one.

As far as the list is concerned, the Navy had combined the Ship fitter, Pipe Fitter, Damage Control man into one specialized rate as a Hull Maintenance Technician in the late 70's.

The Author of this list should raise the Probability of the Pipe Fitter toa highly probable as these folks were the first ones to the steam pipes that were laiden with asbestos.

If they suspected it was asbestos or even insulated, they called the Lagger's to investigate. The Lagger's would take a sample and send it to a testing facility if in shore or one Tech was usually trained to do a microscopic test at sea. When in doubt they treated it as asbestos and ripped it out. The area was quarantined off until the air sample tests were considred OK.

That was the modern post asbestos scare results int he 80's. Before that it was rip off the insulation, add pipe and re insulate the pipe.

Exposure was very high in these specialties.

From a claims note the VA has already conceeded asbestos exposure since I sent them my performance evaluations, however since I am already 100 percent Pulmonary it is a moot point unless I develop Mesothelioma.

Again, thanks for re visiting this issue as we should visit it often.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

J - have you filed claims against the private companies, besides the Navy?? There's a lot of money out there. Probably won't increase your lifespan but could make the fishing better.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have looked at all those little ads. There is a disclaimer usually in print and for some reason the fine print says representation is not available in my state.

Aint that a Hoot. I would have to move to another state to do so. Oh Well. so be it.

Thanks for the post PR. It gives a little hope.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well J, I use to work at the GE Appliance park prior to and after my military service. I cleaned the large drip tanks, and all the large filter units plus the industrial ovens. I'm sure if they did a test for asbestos it would be off the chart. But, I would be SOL if I filed any type of suit.


Share this post

Link to post
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





  • Topics

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Posts

    • ArNG11, I work for a very small agency and there are no other positions that pay at my current rate.  And even if there were, I couldn't perform them successfully.  The Agency has admitted this.  I heard that OPM is taking 10 months to complete disability retirement applications, I was hoping to hear that isn't true.
    • Berta, this was submitted as a fully developed claim.  With the C&P examiners agreeing with my condition has during service I think once I'm officially rated for 7020, I would look at doing a CUE.  What are your thoughts?
    • Here is some old pics off you-tube where I was station in Vietnam Long Bien Post 1969 Commander was Gen William Westmorland ............Buck
    • Heck Vync  that wouldn't buy ya a bad popcorn at our movie theater! 
    • Actually it might be OK as it is....I went back to my 2004 heart disease CUE and basically all I stated was: "This is a claim of Clear and Unmistakable Error under auspices of 38 USC 5109A
      The veteran’s undiagnosed and untreated heart disease had been established in multiple VA medical records as well as at VA Office of General Counsel , for my FTCA case, and at VA Central Office and their findings were sent to the Buffalo VARO by me, via priority mail ,prior to this decision and were ignored. The legal error to my detriment as the surviving spouse was that no rating or acknowledgement whatsoever for made on the 1998 rating sheet for Rod’s heart disease.,yet the award letter clearly states it was one of “multiple deviations from a usual standard of care and all of these deviations hastened the veteran’s death.”" But they (Buffalo VARO) denied it right away so I  rebutted with this: (I had filed a few months after the change date)---I sent them the exact excerpt from M21-1MR Part IV.   Paragraph 309 This claim was due to  CUE they had made in 1998, 4 years after my husband's death, but he had claims pending in his lifetime to include 1151 heart disease that I continued after his death. I forgot all about this M21 statement below . It clearly says even if the condition was Not formally claimed,that any 'chronic disabilities found in the service records, "Even if they were not claimed", for consideration when they prepare the rating decision. This might help you a lot to support the CUE you filed.As far as I know this has not been changed since 2004 but it pays to double check anything one uses from M21-1MR,which is googable and also I believe a link is here to a recent version. "M21-1, Part VI         March 19, 2004
      Change 113 
            Rescission:  Changes 106 and 108.  3.09  ISSUE 
            a.  General.  Clearly state all issues of entitlement identified by the claimant, or those which can be reasonably inferred from the facts or circumstances of the claim.  If there is more than one issue, list the issues by number.  In RBA, the issues appear under the identifier “ISSUE.”  In RBA 2000, the issues appear under the identifier “DECISION.” 
            b.  Compensation Ratings.  Consider all claimed disabilities in the rating decision.  Also consider all chronic disabilities found in the service records even if they were not claimed.  This is to be done on the original rating, or subsequently in cases where additional service medical records are received following an initial rating decision.  Do not consider any of the following conditions unless specifically claimed: 
            (1)  Acute and transitory disorders without residual disability; 
            (2)  Noncompensable residual disability from venereal disease; 
            (3)  Disabilities noted only on an induction examination, or disorders recorded by history only; 
            (4)  Disabilities found by authorization not to have been incurred "in line of duty" (see pt. IV, par. 11.03); and 
            (5)  Clinical findings such as cholesterol or blood sugar levels that are not generally recognized as "disabilities" or subject to service connection. "
      I hope others here however, will opine on this situation you have. Most of us advocates here are up to speed on CUE I think...or should be,....