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.

[Roadrunner]

Just an update for everyone.  I contacted Matt Hill's office and now I'm waiting to hear back from them.  To find out if they will handle my claim.  Will keep you posted.  Thank you to all.

[Berta]

That is great!

Matt Hill is fighting a case over Danang Harbor vets and he is very concerned about all vets exposed to AO.

[Roadrunner]

I received an e-mail from Mr. Hill's office.  It stated he was unable to handle my claim at this time due to a high case load.  So I will be attempting to contact another VA accredited lawyer here in my state, closer to me.  Any ideas or thoughts about this would be appreciated.  Thanks to all for your help.

[bluenote]

Folks, just for heads-up. M21-1 change dated August 7, 2015 removed language from Thailand exposure issues of "otherwise served near the air base perimeter as shown by evidence of daily work duties, performance evaluation reports, other credible evidence."  This language was reflective of a 2010 C&P Bulletin. . . .

 

[Roadrunner]

Thanks bluenote for the heads up.  Does this mean that this wording has been removed and if so for what. I was just looking at M21-1 section q. yesterday and it still showed the wording you are talking about.  Maybe the one I looked at was an older one.  I'm going to try and find the updated one you speak of.  Thanks again to all.

[bluenote]

Roadrunner, don't worry . . . possible I may track changes too closely.  August 2015 modification to M21-1 did leave out certain language that would effect claims for Thailand vets without MOS consistent with security details.  However, October 30, 2015 change to M21-1 added the language “otherwise served near the air base perimeter as shown by evidence of daily work duties, performance evaluation reports, other credible evidence…” back to the adjudication manual.