Thailand Vet Agent Orange Denial

[Roadrunner]

Hello my fellow Vets.  Today I received my B.B.E. from the V.A.  It contained my Denial for my claim submitted 2/15 for Prostrate Cancer as a result of Agent Orange exposure. After submitting my claim I found this forum, and learned that I should not have used the words Agent Orange.  I am a Thailand Vet stationed at Udorn R.T.A.F.B. from 4/69 till 2/70 at which time I was discharged at Travis A.F.B. Calif.  My hooch was about 100 ft. from the Base perimeter fence line & Kill zone.  So after reading some of the post from this forum, I will be claiming "BOOTS ON  THE GROUND" in my N.O.D. along with other items that I have found on the forum.  So fellow Vets. move over, 1 more hamster reporting for duty on that Wheel.  I would appreciate any and all ideas and suggestions, leading to a better decision on my claim.  Thank you.  And THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.   I hope this is the correct forum for this.  If not please move to the right one.

[Buck52]

It seems to me the VA needs to CUE them self   saying your MOS does not put you in contact with the Agent  (AO) WHEN IN FACT you was right beside it  ...what they made a big mistake is saying your MOS does not qualify you and then contradict   them selfs by saying its a presumption...to me in my opinion just being there qualifies you.

Ms Berta will be back with this  soon as she can!

jmo

 

.......Buck

 

........ 

[Berta]

This vet  says he was in Thailand at Udorn from 4/69 to 2/70.

The Denial says "The law provides'....presumption yada yada from

"April 8th through Septemeber 8th 1964."

The Spelling of September is wrong but not the problem....they have completely misapplied the Thailand directive.

It doesn't say what they stated it said.

The Memorandum they obtained  ,per the evidence list and used against the claim is useless and has no merit.

It seems they only tried to obtain info for a 5 month period ( April to Sept 1964) but you never claimed to be in Thailand at that time.

What has your  POA, the AL, said about this error?

The fact that they did not find your MOS as fitting into the Directive, can be overcome, with evidence of how close you were to the perimeter, but even with that proof, your RO manipulated the dates of the Directive as well as the dates you claimed exposure so they probably didnt read your military records at all. or if they did, as I have said here many times, they dont know how to read.

For all we know you could have been still in Lackland BT in 1964.

So even if you had any MOS that warranted presumption, with the wrong dates here they would have denied anyhow,.

Also they made no mention at all of the "Law" they were reading and nothing from M21-1mR or anywhere else as to how they implemented the "law"-which is a directive they were too illiterate to read.

Unless I am going nuts and reading the pdf decision wrong....

These types of errors have to be corrected right from the gitgo......and it does not take a AO expert to see how this 1964 timeframe they made up, has nothing to do with this claim.

 

If I were you I would contact Matt Hill as to the info they have on Udorn.

Maybe I will contact him myself......I was surprised at that transcript  excerpt  I posted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Berta]

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/locations/thailand.asp

The dates are quite clear in the directive (which they never mentioned as evidence)

You didnt claim you were there in their five month 1964 timeframe.

The AL should have caught this right away.

Not only can the VA be illiterate, I think they do this crap on purpose sometimes, hoping no one will catch an error like this that sure would set this claim onto the BVA remand hamster wheel.

Let us know what the AL says about this.

And if I am reading the pdf wrong please let me know.

As it is definitely a CUE and this is something the AL should fix right away.

[Buck52]

Yes Ms Berta I too had questions about those 1964 dates.  your exactly correct.

 

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

[Buck52]

I would listen to Ms Berta  and contact Matt Hill.

 

..Buck

[Berta]

And the AL.... these well paid vet reps should be catching errors like that....