Cavc- Hunt Vs. Mcdonald

[FormerMember]

This may be a single judge memorandum decision but the courts and VA are not free to ignore the thrust of the decision as it rests on other precedence. For years, trying to prove you were in-country so as to get presumptive for herbicides has been a challange for some of us-most especially blue water folks who came ashore for mail runs or R&R at Vung Tau. Hunt opens up an interesting can of worms for VA. Never has a Vet been allowed to simply offer lay testimony that he came ashore and been believed. Judge Greenberg put a fork in that June 14th. VA has been instructed to "fix" it. The third BVA denial was the CAVC charm.

Check it out, my fellow bullet biters. Fifty years later and Willie finally gets the green smoke.

https://asknod.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/cavc-hunt-vs-mcdonald-red-clay-between-my-toes/

[broncovet]

Thanks for your opinion and link on this. Yes, I would ask whenever you write an opinion on cases, that you provide hadit a link, as I am assuming you dont go to the trouble to write on a particular case unless it has validity for other Vets.

I agree there is a problem there, and hope this resolves it. The courts have long said that Veterans were competent to testify on such stuff that does not require a medical degree. YOu can testify, for example, that your roomates complained of your snoring. You dont have to go into the docs office and snore for him, your lay testimony (or your wife's lay testimony) is sufficient to establish that you snored, but it wont suffice to establish a diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

IN a similar manner, "lay testimony" should suffice to testify you were in country in Vietnam, especially if your SMR's were lost in a fire or whatever. You dont need an MD to know whether or not you went to Vietnam.

Remeber, too, the courts have ruled that they can not "throw out" our testimony exclusively because we are an "interested party".

Sure, they could show our testimony to be not credible if we lied about something else..I get that. Or, I can also see how our testimony could be disregarded if it conflicted with the evidence of record.

If I recall, you said the VA said you did not get shot in Vietnam, and you had to prove that you did. That is wrong. Just because there may not have been anyone around to "document" your Vn GSW, that does not mean it did not happen. There could be many reasons why your GSW was not documented, and they may have had nothing to do with a Veteran lying, and everything to do with you being in a war, where there was no one around to document it. Records get lost. "Absence of Evidence" is not the same as "Evidence of Absence". Still, time after time, the VA cites, "the record is absent any evidence of....." in its reasons and bases for denial.

IMHO, if there were a discrepency between the Veterans lay testimony and the Evidence of Record, this should automatically "trigger" a C and P exam, to, hopefully, resolve this discrepency. In your case, you could go to the C and P Doc, and say...yea..see this scar here? This happened in Vietnam. Further, I think the Veteran deserves an MRI, if necessary, to document some sort of in service wound.

Edited July 20, 2015 by broncovet

[Buck52]

I understand the blue water veterans have a hard time with claims of AO and denied because VA says AO WAS NOT IN BLUEWATER BUT LIKE THIS VETERAN HE PUT BOOTS ON GROUND GOING FROM HIS SHIP TO INCOUNTRY.so that should be all he needs to prove he has AO presumptive disease for his claim.

Anyone severely injured while in the RVN should not need medical proof for a compensation claim later the VA should take the veterans word on it. if a fellow soldier gets shot he should have his unit brothers to help him to safety and seek medical attention asap , its not the soldiers fault if it don't get documented.

I don't know what the % is that veterans have got injured in RVN and it was not reported therefore they won't file a claim if they think they will be denied.

MY OPINION THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT SHOULD GO TO THE VETERAN AS HE CAN PROVE HE WAS IN RVN BOOTS ON GROUND and in RVN there were hostile enemy forces all over in country, Inside RVN some areas was more intense hostile action than others but any given time in RVN there was unexpected events happen that was of enemy hostile forces.

And if and when a soldier gets shot or injured from enemy hostile action he should get compensated for it

jmo

....................Buck

[FormerMember]

For the record, I was shot in Laos. We were not there in a military capacity or so the story goes. My ID said I was employed by USAID and taught French. To whom I taught it, I'm not sure. My non-disclosure agreements keep me mum for 50 years until 2020. I'll tell you all about it then. Meanwhile, you can get an idea here>>>http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com/2012/09/ravens-over-laos-inside-legendary-steve.html Some called it Terry and the Pirates program.

Here's a photo at Udorn Air Base after six months over the fence. My .25 cal FN "baby" was strapped to my left ankle. Never left home without it.

Edited July 20, 2015 by asknod