Commander Bob

Re: Project 112 And Shad —

7 posts in this topic

June 6,2010

RE: Project 112 and Project SHAD —


Veterans from 1960's chemical tests press for help

By Erica Werner Associated Press

"Lawmakers and veterans of secret Cold War-era chemical and germ tests on military personnel demanded help from the Bush administration Thursday, but they got no satisfaction. Officials from the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department said there was no need for legislation to guarantee health care and benefits to the veterans. Thousands of servicemembers were exposed, often without their knowledge, to real and simulated chemical and biological agents, including sarin and VX. " Read Full Article Here

Edited by Tbird
Edited to avoid Copyright Infringement

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

TestVet is our expert on Shad. I never heard of it until Test started talking about it years ago. Reminds of me of Move "Jacob's ladder" which was loosely based on real events.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerrel Cook, the host of SVR is also a Shad Expert. We discuss it regurlary.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

AO lawsuit

There are 2 reasons in my opinion why AO disability is compensated as well as certain diseases and illness in Persian Gulf War Vets (which are now also service connectable in Iraq and Afganistan veterans.

One reason is that AO vets and PGW vets ( Denise Nichols comes to mind as the forefront leader in this for PGW vets)

have been organized to a degree and VERY vocal at times as to getting not only the older presumtives but having new ones added.

The three new AO presumptives =for example-did not begin in a vacuum.The internet itself has helped the AO presumptive list grow.

The second reason I feel that Project SHAD and 112 vets have been unable to get any presumptive status or proper service connections is the fact that no one in the SHAD or 112 community has done any research as far as I know as to what disabilities are prevalent in SHAD/112 veterans and then research into what type of exposure would cause those disabilities.

Of course this research (and maybe someone has done it but I am not aware of it) would include statistics from the VA as to what illnesses are being claimed in SHAD and 112 vets and that can establish a commonality.

If many if not most claims denied for SHAD were based on-lets say- respiratory disability-then that is a benchmark right there and the SHAD/112 community could attempt to organize, and collect funds for the sole purpose of getting a top notch environmental expert (or every two or three) to not only study this commonality pattern but try to link this condition to any known medical data available regarding SHAD 112 exposure and the chemicals that they used.

Love Canal is a good example of what I mean.

When someone began to document the high rate of many illnesses in this area-then they began to find even more incidence of environmental bio hazard disability than they thought.Once that data was collected the Love Canal was studied environmentally.It is a Superfund site now.

Marines are pushing about the Camp Lejeune situation of contamination- and perhaps those sites would reveal what steps they are taking to get some form of compensation for the mess there.plenty of info on the net as to contamination at Camp Lejeune.

The Agent Orange situation started out as a lawsuit:


The lawsuit had nothing at all to do with VA or the compensation program.

My husband was in it and then so was I after his death.I am sure I still have the actual suit here and all that went with it as far as the class action settlement. The settlement covered EVERY Vietnam vet who was 100% disabled. Period.

That tells me that regardless of the disability they had - Dow and the other chem companys had to cough up the cash.

It suggest to me that the inner documentation of the lawsuit held significant information that AO was more deadly then we thought and capable of causing numerous disabilities yet at the time (1991) there were very few AO presumptives at all.

The original AO lawsuit is a good read for an avenue of approach to the SHAD/112 situation.

With a major collective effort on the part of SHAD/112 vets -who are willing to donate their time and even some money- if some strong medical evidence of disabilities that could be associated with the chemicals used in SHAD./112 can be found- then a lawyer might well be quite willing to take a case.

Of course I might be talking out of my --- here- the AO lawauit involved sueing the chemical companies that made the AO and sold it to the Gov.

I have no idea who made the SHAD chems and sold them to the Mil. cripes maybe DOW did???

And the fact remains that no commonality basis has even been established yet as to prevalent disabilities in veterans who were in these tests.

Just like the history of AO- AO certainly was not confined to use in Vietnam.

The fact that vets have done the leg work to prove it was used elsewhere- and I have posted some of those cases here at hadit-

shows that the original AO suit didnt even have all the facts.

Since Danang Air base today has a level of dioxin that is 400 times what it was during the Vietnam War(Hatfield Study 2007) that too shows that not only is the AO situation still only at the tip of the iceberg in my opinion-

but also research into SHAD and 112 vets and scientific assessments of the actual bio chems they used might in the long run reveal SHAD/112 is an iceberg too.

These statements are my opinions only.

The clock is ticking for 112/SHAD veterans -it is ticking for us all- but these vets have to collectively not only support any pending legislation but begin to support it with some scientific and medical facts.

They need to view the entire SHAD 112 situation as a VA claim.

It will take medical evidence and a strong nexus factor.

Edited by carlie
Double post within post

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

need information support for my disabilit claim; concerning project 112/SHAD

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this info at your other post:

Has the VA ever sent you a letter identifying you as a SHAD vet?

Have you looked up the SHAD exercise operation you were in-in the Ops SHAD list?

There are no SHAD presumptives as there has not been found any commonality factor in disablites of vets that can be attributed to SHAD.

You would need to prove you have a documented disability that,by medical evidence, is solely due to SHAD participation.

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
    Apache AH64
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Posts

    • That almost covers the cost of one movie theater ticket
    • I suggest strongly AGAIN here that anyone attempting CUE, to review the actual CUE regulations ( 38 USC 5109A) and go over our CUE forum here carefully --lots in it.. One CUE they committed, as I stated before, in my opinion is 38 CFR 4.6 et al, specifically the 4.6 part,regarding the 'active duty ' period. Without reading the actual denied decision for the CUE potential , however,  this is just a guess. "The CUE reads,  I am making a CUE ("clear unmissable error") claims for asthma, costrochondritis, pneumothorax, decortication, hemothorax and the thoracotomy. The VA committed legal error when it denied these claims on August 2013." "The VA's 2013 denials do not mention my service on active duty in 2011." If that omission was Probative to your claim in 2013, that is a CUE under 38 CFR I posted here before. Is that CUE still pending? Again I suggest to all out there who want to file CUE....READ the CUE info in the CUE forum... Some vets dont know what a CUE is but think VA committed CUE  and that wont do it......other vets here know there is a CUE basis and are willing to clearly define the legal error to the VA. This claims ( there are CUE templates here) MUST be carefully worded and satisfy the 3 prongs of CUE: 1. Clearly identified Legal error (s) in past decision (whether denial or  award) use 38 CFR, or 38 USC, or both and also you can add any M21-1MR citations they failed to apply,as well as any VA OGC Pres Op or any CAVC precedent decision. The specific Legal Error from 38 CFR or USC is really all you need,for most CUEs, but it pays to add icing to the CUE cake when possible. 2.The legal error cost you a proper retro amount ( the manifested altered outcome) 3. the medical evidence at time of the alleged CUE was in VA's possession at that time. Meaning they had your SMRs, to include your discharge certificate any IMO/IMES, results of all C & P exams, and anything else (like a SSDI award) etc etc etc ,all VA and or treatment records, etc. # 3 is like the Watergate question: 'what did they know and when did they know it' Army veteran 2008 -If you typed here that is exactly how the CUE was worded and it is still pending, they might review the decision and agree........I say Might, because I don't think it clearly defines the obvious error they made. It makes sense what you wrote, but VA does not use common sense. I have seen multiple BVA denials of CUE solely because the legal error was not specified.In that case the veteran usually was given the opportunity to file a new CUE, and BVA would say they were not prejudiced by the older denied CUE. That is nice, it gives them their rights, however another CUE could take many more years. Do you have a vet rep? Others will chime in. Everything I know about CUE is in our CUE forum already    
    • what does the DOD / or military personal in charge of veterans service records..what and where do they send them? Most prior Vietnam Veterans that were there before the fall of Saigon of 75,   in the late 60's to early 70's  for some of us the unit we were in has disapated and no longer exist According to ( Google Search) I put in my unit name Battillon AP0# and they can't seem to find any records...OK I called NPRC (Archives) St Louis they said ARB has all my Records. NRPC Lady says they have them because I have a claim in  . I said butI don't have a claim in I already have my claim decided back in 2015  Then she kinda got hissy fit with me we don't have your records and said she is disconnecting this call now  conversation over. eh! My old unit in Germany no longer exist either according to google search. but I was there for 10 months just south of Mannheim Germany in Tompkins Barracks but I was there  eh! ARB (Army Review Board of military records correction) Contacted me and said they don't have any of my Service Records to make a correction on my 214..AND DENIED MY CORRECTION..I have one Year to submit more records of evidence  with the dates that are correct. So how else can a Veteran that needs his  complete military service records get them? My reason for asking is I am trying to get my DD-214 Corrected  b/c of the service dates are incorrect and they don't show my Germany service on it..only Vietnam Service  but the dates are wrong on that too. I have been fighting with the ARB (Army Review Board of corrections military Records) in Arlington Va I sent them old unit records/ TDY Travel Orders and any records I had to support my correction. I seem to have lost my Orders after Basic Training and AIT  but I wrote ARB a letter  in detail the dates I was in basic and where and the dates from AIT and where &as close to the dates and where for Germany & Vietnam...Well that's not good enough either  ARB says they need Military unit Records...I don't have any and can't seem to get any.?? I even sent what records I had  that I used in my PTSD Claim  Mostly Vietnam Records...they are not good enough either b/c the dates where actually when I was in Vietnam  and not my ETS from Nam  that's the dates I need because I extended my tour longer than the required 12 months of Vietnam Duty. Any help from anyone would be appreciated. ..............................Buck
    • Thank you all for the advice.. I really appreciate it.
    • Better yet---can you scan and attach here  a copy of the CUE claim that the 'company' put in? Cover names address etc and your C file # prior to scanning it. Did you mean the 2013 CUE was denied and this regards a different claim? CUE claims have to be worded VERY carefully. I used a regulation regarding the 'lack of' ratings for some of the above CUEs.I forget what it was, those CUE claims are here somewhere,... but the 'company' probably used the same regulation....I dont know..... I