allan

>our AO list-in my opinion- does NOT reflect all problems it caused in serviceprsonnel and civilians. Hello Berta, they don't want anyone to know how toxic it actually is. It alters DNA ! I've never received an answer to, "what does it alter too, generations down the line"? I just get stared at. When they should learn all they can to develop ways to treat the effects, they stick their heads in the sand & watch their troops & their families suffer & die. Weapons of mass destruction"? Thats exactly what it is. What time tommarow night?

fwd from: Colonel Dan At U.S. Military Hospitals, 'Everybody Is Overworked' (USA Today, June 5, 2007, Pg. 1) Months after the problems revealed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center caused a massive shake-up throughout the military's system of healthcare, the service is still struggling to find enough doctors and nurses to care for troops and their families. The Army operates 36 medical facilities worldwide. For the past two years, more than half have failed to meet Pentagon standards for providing a physician within seven days for routine medical care. And the Army has been forced to spend more money sending military families to doctors in nearby communities. Give Vets More Mental Healthcare Funds, Panels Urge (Miami Herald, June 5, 2007) Saying they are "very concerned" that the Department of Veterans Affairs is not spending enough on mental health treatment, congressional members of both parties are pushing for more money in next year's VA budget. While the budget and appropriations plan for fiscal 2008 is in the works and will not be settled for months, veterans committee members in the House and Senate say more needs to be done to reach out and treat soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Ex-FW Congressman Faces Host Of Problems As Incoming Army Secretary (Dallas Morning News, June 4, 2007, Pg. 1) The Army is mired in Iraq. Combat tours are growing longer. Equipment is wearing out fast. And the last civilian Army chief got ousted over shoddy conditions at the famed Walter Reed hospital. Into the line of fire comes Pete Geren, a former Democratic congressman from Fort Worth who has toiled at the Pentagon since 2001 and is now President Bush's pick to serve as secretary of the Army. Soft-spoken, methodical, unflappable, Geren takes each challenge in stride. He has worn two hats since early March, as undersecretary of the Army and as acting secretary.

Fwd: PN Challenge Response Many of your were hoping we would get a positive response from our Challenge on Peripheral Neuropathy. I would suggest it is all in vain, as neither Congress nor the NAS/IOM want to hear the issues. _http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/PNChallengeResponse.htm_'>http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/PNChallengeResponse.htm_ (http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/PNChallengeResponse.htm) We tried anyway. We can take pride in that effort. Kelley

Section A. Eligibility for Hospital, Nursing Home, Domiciliary, and Medical Care http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/admin21/m21_1/...7/ch07_seca.doc

Section C. Adjusting Awards Involving Aid & Attendance (A&A) Allowance http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/admin21/m21_1/...6/ch06_secc.doc

Section A. Information Exchange Between VA Regional Offices (ROs) and Medical Facilities http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/admin21/m21_1/...6/ch06_seca.doc

Fibromyalgia & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome http://chronicfatigue.about.com/

Follow-up, New Website, AO in Milk in Nam, New Zealand Media Report, http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/Followup.htm 9/11 Toxic Chemical Victim to be added to the list of 9/11 Victims Follow up on decontamination of AO drums or anything with AO Follow up on AO and Benzene Posting - reference DoD decontamination procedures. I don't know if this would help or not. Back in the early nineties, I was working for a toxic clean-up corporation. One day I was asked if I knew anything about AO. It seems there was a spill or something and the Company (Magnum Tank Service, Pompano Beach FL) was thinking about taking the job. However, I was later informed that the reason they (Magnum) did not take the job was that had they taken the job the Tankers that would have been used would have to be destroyed, as there was NO KNOWN way to clean the Tankers out. Once used for AO, that is all they could ever be used. Thanks Nick I wonder what the Fort Detrick instructions were. If anyone has a copy, please let me know so we can post it. “On October 23, 1969, an urgent message was sent from Fort Detrick, Maryland, to MACV concerning cleaning of drums containing herbicides. The message provided detailed instructions on how to clean the drums and warned that it was particularly important to clean Agent Orange drums.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New website to me on Vietnam Archives, including AO. Thanks to John, there is a searchable website by the Red Raiders of Texas Tech University. If you go to http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamarchive/...agentorange.htm Then select on the left side Reference Information and then slide over to Reference Databases. When that loads on the left, you can select Search the Virtual Vietnam Archives. When that loads you can type in search criteria such as “Peripheral Neuropathy” – of course hit search and then display results. Just on, Neuropathy it came up with 479 hits in their archive on AO. Yet VA, DoD, and NAS/IOM say it is not associated. Of course the VA Cosa Nostra will probably pay them a visit and shut it down. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Gibbo in Australia - If you drank milk in 'Nam between 1965 and 1972 you ingested Agent Orange and a variety of other herbicide residues. As you may know, the Foremost Milk Company (now out of business in the US) based in Los Angeles held the DOD contract for the US military's milk supply in So'east Asia. Before and after shipping packaged 'finished milk' in its distinctive orange/white containers, Foremost shipped a milk concentrate to 'Nam which was to be mixed with water. Unfortunately, the water used was taken from the Saigon River that, DOD belatedly learned, was infested with herbicide drainage. Foremost USA went defunct several years ago but Foremost Vietnam is still in operation. Milk became an essential export by the USG to Vietnam after 1967 after doctors in the States discovered they were treating large numbers of Vietnam vets suffering from gastroenteritis and other colon inflammatory illnesses due to lack of the enzyme used by the intestines to digest milk. If a person continues to drink milk, their body will continue to produce the enzyme (kind of like a wet nurse who continues to manufacture breast milk for decades after giving birth as long as her milk continues to be suckled.) However, if a person stops drinking milk their body stops producing the enzyme. Because milk was not as available in 'Nam during America's early deployment thousands of Americans assigned to Vietnam gradually stopped producing the enzyme... but when they returned back to The World the first thing they consumed in large quantities was milk... which made them sick because they could no longer adequately digest it. As a result, Foremost was contracted to ensure there was always a large supply of milk for GI's to consume. Unfortunately, the high demand resulted in its Vietnam production being mixed with tainted water. Hence, many American's who served in Vietnam but had no direct contact with herbicide distribution or deployment contracted the chemicals through the milk they drank. REFERENCES: 1. Herbicides Used in Vietnam http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwhr1.htm 2. Foremost Vietnam http://www.asemconnectvietnam.gov.vn/Local...5&DnID=7503 I think the NAS/IOM and our government are the only ones left in the world that deny most Vietnam Veterans came home with gastro problems – such as intolerance to milk and milk products – heavy red meats, or anything greasy. I know that I could no longer eat the things I grew up on after being gone for 365 days and many I have talked with said the same thing. The University of Fl I think it was around 70 or 71 did a study on why so many Veterans were coming home with this disorder. My mother was the one that pointed it out to me since she knew then, something was wrong. I just passed it off as something you had to live with. Most of us were diagnosed from anything from IBS, or a spastic this, or a spastic that which meant the doctors had no idea. I had three lower GI series and two upper GI series with a stay in the hospital to try and find out what was wrong. Of course, the VA says no no on that since the doctor I was treated by and the hospital, which was a humanitarian hospital out of business now (since hospitals are big business these days) decades ago and I have no records. I have testimony of at least three folks in the family and one friend he served with the 25th that indicate I was treated in the hospital and had severe gastro problems after coming home. It was only after I put it together and had the appropriate tests run did it verify the damages. Now that was probably the first sign we had a toxic chemical issue “immune system issues” but the testing that was not available then and or course our truthful government denying all of the toxic chemical issues with VA in the lead as the denier of facts working with DoW and Monsanto. Moreover, lets add in the EPA at that time also – when some EPA scientists blew the whistle, then they were punished - not the chemical companies for their lies in court. Had the proper testing been done then they would have found the small intestine celi were burnt to hell and back. The tips of the celi make the enzyme for the milk double sugar. If it is damaged then you no longer produce the enzyme for milk. In addition, it can be associated to a lack of absorption of essential minerals and vitamins such as loss of B12 another noted AO association. That by the way, can also be associated with neurological damages? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Zealand media report - American Vets, while our government has been full of malfeasance, collaborations, and conspiracies as criminal as it is; the New Zealand Vets have been treated even worse by their government and their citizenry, if one can imagine that. Big Vietnam claim to Waitangi Tribunal By KRISTIAN SOUTH - Sunday News | Sunday, 3 June 2007 EXCLUSIVE THE former head of the Anglican Church in New Zealand has lodged a $170 million Waitangi Tribunal claim on behalf of Kiwi Vietnam War veterans. Bishop Te Whakahuihui Vercoe, who stood down as Archbishop of Aotearoa last year for health reasons, said he laid the claim because veterans' exposure to Agent Orange had ruined Maori bloodlines. "About 60 percent of those who served in Vietnam were Maori," Bishop Vercoe told Sunday News from his Rotorua home. "My goal is to protect our children and wives, because if the Government does not care about them, who will? And what would become of those children born without limbs? "This is about improving the amount that has been allotted to the widows and families of veterans." Agent Orange was used to kill foliage which provided cover for the Viet Cong in the war. It also destroyed the health of American troops and their allies, including New Zealand troops. A Sunday News investigation last year uncovered medical tests which showed the defoliant caused genetic damage in up to 3500 Kiwi vets. The DNA damage was suspected to be so bad it could affect multiple generations with cancer, spina bifida and a host of other genetic diseases. Bishop Vercoe's $170m Waitangi Tribunal claim came less than a month after a group of angry veterans announced they were suing the Government and individual ministers for $5 billion. The vets' launched their massive suit because they were furious with the $30 million compensation package announced by the Government earlier this year, which was believed to assist less than 100 veterans and their families. "The Vietnam veterans have asked me to do this and it is hoped that this will back up any claims they have against the nation and the Government," Bishop Vercoe said. "(The money) will be used to accommodate the widows and children of soldiers that are suffering as a result of Agent Orange." Bishop Vercoe served in the Vietnam War as a chaplain in 1968, often joining the soldiers on the front line rather than sticking to the safety of his office. The 79-year-old is battling a brain tumour but has put his pain on hold to fight for the rights of Kiwi vets. Sunday News has obtained a copy of Bishop Vercoe's Waitangi Tribunal claim, dated May 25. In it, the bishop is quick to point out he believes Pakeha soldiers should also be covered in the settlement. "I wish it to be known right from the outset that the only reason my Pakeha fellow-Vietnam vet is not standing as a co-claimant with me is the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975," Vercoe writes. He told Sunday News: "(Pakeha) cannot go to the Waitangi Tribunal but we are still working with them to make sure that they are not left out. This is not just for our Maori veterans, this claim is as much for the non-Maori I shared foxholes with." Representing Bishop Vercoe in his claim is top Waitangi Tribunal and public law specialist Paul Harman - also the New Zealand legal representative for the pending $5 billion lawsuit against the Government. Harman said the claim was valid under the Treaty of Waitangi Act. "The sooner the government stops worrying about saving money and starts focusing on ensuring the needs of these veterans and their families are addressed the better," Harman said. Bishop Vercoe, a principal companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, led Maori on the 1998 Hikoi of Hope march to Parliament. But he said the Waitangi Treaty claim was his crowning achievement. "This is No 1 as far as I'm concerned,"," Bishop Vercoe said. "I think the veterans have been treated very badly since Vietnam. The nation has never recognized them and they went into a war zone that they were told wasn't a war zone. The local prisoners do better than us. They get compensation and we don't." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/11 Toxic Chemical Victim to be added to the list of 9/11 Victims 9/11 Victim List I guess you heard on the news that a person died from what was determined exposure to toxic chemicals (probably dioxins) (recall the NY Times article of concern of dioxins in the area) from the burning of the attack on the trade centers. This persons name will be added to the list of "victims of the attack itself." I wonder how that medical decision for a civilian was ascertained and how differently the process is compared to the NAS/IOM processes used to determine our Veteran Victim status in death and disability; not caused by terrorist but our own government. I would bet the decisions making process is like night and day; or Veterans controlled by the VA and an honest doctor's opinion. I wonder if that family will now be eligible for the millions in government compensations. If they did that for the Veteran Victims, it would take about four times the space we have now for the wall. In my opinion, just another government slap in the face to Veterans compared to civilians. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kelley

Follow-up, New Website, AO in Milk in Nam, New Zealand Media Report, http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/Followup.htm 9/11 Toxic Chemical Victim to be added to the list of 9/11 Victims Follow up on decontamination of AO drums or anything with AO Follow up on AO and Benzene Posting - reference DoD decontamination procedures. I don't know if this would help or not. Back in the early nineties, I was working for a toxic clean-up corporation. One day I was asked if I knew anything about AO. It seems there was a spill or something and the Company (Magnum Tank Service, Pompano Beach FL) was thinking about taking the job. However, I was later informed that the reason they (Magnum) did not take the job was that had they taken the job the Tankers that would have been used would have to be destroyed, as there was NO KNOWN way to clean the Tankers out. Once used for AO, that is all they could ever be used. Thanks Nick I wonder what the Fort Detrick instructions were. If anyone has a copy, please let me know so we can post it. “On October 23, 1969, an urgent message was sent from Fort Detrick, Maryland, to MACV concerning cleaning of drums containing herbicides. The message provided detailed instructions on how to clean the drums and warned that it was particularly important to clean Agent Orange drums.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New website to me on Vietnam Archives, including AO. Thanks to John, there is a searchable website by the Red Raiders of Texas Tech University. If you go to http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamarchive/...agentorange.htm Then select on the left side Reference Information and then slide over to Reference Databases. When that loads on the left, you can select Search the Virtual Vietnam Archives. When that loads you can type in search criteria such as “Peripheral Neuropathy” – of course hit search and then display results. Just on, Neuropathy it came up with 479 hits in their archive on AO. Yet VA, DoD, and NAS/IOM say it is not associated. Of course the VA Cosa Nostra will probably pay them a visit and shut it down. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Gibbo in Australia - If you drank milk in 'Nam between 1965 and 1972 you ingested Agent Orange and a variety of other herbicide residues. As you may know, the Foremost Milk Company (now out of business in the US) based in Los Angeles held the DOD contract for the US military's milk supply in So'east Asia. Before and after shipping packaged 'finished milk' in its distinctive orange/white containers, Foremost shipped a milk concentrate to 'Nam which was to be mixed with water. Unfortunately, the water used was taken from the Saigon River that, DOD belatedly learned, was infested with herbicide drainage. Foremost USA went defunct several years ago but Foremost Vietnam is still in operation. Milk became an essential export by the USG to Vietnam after 1967 after doctors in the States discovered they were treating large numbers of Vietnam vets suffering from gastroenteritis and other colon inflammatory illnesses due to lack of the enzyme used by the intestines to digest milk. If a person continues to drink milk, their body will continue to produce the enzyme (kind of like a wet nurse who continues to manufacture breast milk for decades after giving birth as long as her milk continues to be suckled.) However, if a person stops drinking milk their body stops producing the enzyme. Because milk was not as available in 'Nam during America's early deployment thousands of Americans assigned to Vietnam gradually stopped producing the enzyme... but when they returned back to The World the first thing they consumed in large quantities was milk... which made them sick because they could no longer adequately digest it. As a result, Foremost was contracted to ensure there was always a large supply of milk for GI's to consume. Unfortunately, the high demand resulted in its Vietnam production being mixed with tainted water. Hence, many American's who served in Vietnam but had no direct contact with herbicide distribution or deployment contracted the chemicals through the milk they drank. REFERENCES: 1. Herbicides Used in Vietnam http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwhr1.htm 2. Foremost Vietnam http://www.asemconnectvietnam.gov.vn/Local...5&DnID=7503 I think the NAS/IOM and our government are the only ones left in the world that deny most Vietnam Veterans came home with gastro problems – such as intolerance to milk and milk products – heavy red meats, or anything greasy. I know that I could no longer eat the things I grew up on after being gone for 365 days and many I have talked with said the same thing. The University of Fl I think it was around 70 or 71 did a study on why so many Veterans were coming home with this disorder. My mother was the one that pointed it out to me since she knew then, something was wrong. I just passed it off as something you had to live with. Most of us were diagnosed from anything from IBS, or a spastic this, or a spastic that which meant the doctors had no idea. I had three lower GI series and two upper GI series with a stay in the hospital to try and find out what was wrong. Of course, the VA says no no on that since the doctor I was treated by and the hospital, which was a humanitarian hospital out of business now (since hospitals are big business these days) decades ago and I have no records. I have testimony of at least three folks in the family and one friend he served with the 25th that indicate I was treated in the hospital and had severe gastro problems after coming home. It was only after I put it together and had the appropriate tests run did it verify the damages. Now that was probably the first sign we had a toxic chemical issue “immune system issues” but the testing that was not available then and or course our truthful government denying all of the toxic chemical issues with VA in the lead as the denier of facts working with DoW and Monsanto. Moreover, lets add in the EPA at that time also – when some EPA scientists blew the whistle, then they were punished - not the chemical companies for their lies in court. Had the proper testing been done then they would have found the small intestine celi were burnt to hell and back. The tips of the celi make the enzyme for the milk double sugar. If it is damaged then you no longer produce the enzyme for milk. In addition, it can be associated to a lack of absorption of essential minerals and vitamins such as loss of B12 another noted AO association. That by the way, can also be associated with neurological damages? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Zealand media report - American Vets, while our government has been full of malfeasance, collaborations, and conspiracies as criminal as it is; the New Zealand Vets have been treated even worse by their government and their citizenry, if one can imagine that. Big Vietnam claim to Waitangi Tribunal By KRISTIAN SOUTH - Sunday News | Sunday, 3 June 2007 EXCLUSIVE THE former head of the Anglican Church in New Zealand has lodged a $170 million Waitangi Tribunal claim on behalf of Kiwi Vietnam War veterans. Bishop Te Whakahuihui Vercoe, who stood down as Archbishop of Aotearoa last year for health reasons, said he laid the claim because veterans' exposure to Agent Orange had ruined Maori bloodlines. "About 60 percent of those who served in Vietnam were Maori," Bishop Vercoe told Sunday News from his Rotorua home. "My goal is to protect our children and wives, because if the Government does not care about them, who will? And what would become of those children born without limbs? "This is about improving the amount that has been allotted to the widows and families of veterans." Agent Orange was used to kill foliage which provided cover for the Viet Cong in the war. It also destroyed the health of American troops and their allies, including New Zealand troops. A Sunday News investigation last year uncovered medical tests which showed the defoliant caused genetic damage in up to 3500 Kiwi vets. The DNA damage was suspected to be so bad it could affect multiple generations with cancer, spina bifida and a host of other genetic diseases. Bishop Vercoe's $170m Waitangi Tribunal claim came less than a month after a group of angry veterans announced they were suing the Government and individual ministers for $5 billion. The vets' launched their massive suit because they were furious with the $30 million compensation package announced by the Government earlier this year, which was believed to assist less than 100 veterans and their families. "The Vietnam veterans have asked me to do this and it is hoped that this will back up any claims they have against the nation and the Government," Bishop Vercoe said. "(The money) will be used to accommodate the widows and children of soldiers that are suffering as a result of Agent Orange." Bishop Vercoe served in the Vietnam War as a chaplain in 1968, often joining the soldiers on the front line rather than sticking to the safety of his office. The 79-year-old is battling a brain tumour but has put his pain on hold to fight for the rights of Kiwi vets. Sunday News has obtained a copy of Bishop Vercoe's Waitangi Tribunal claim, dated May 25. In it, the bishop is quick to point out he believes Pakeha soldiers should also be covered in the settlement. "I wish it to be known right from the outset that the only reason my Pakeha fellow-Vietnam vet is not standing as a co-claimant with me is the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975," Vercoe writes. He told Sunday News: "(Pakeha) cannot go to the Waitangi Tribunal but we are still working with them to make sure that they are not left out. This is not just for our Maori veterans, this claim is as much for the non-Maori I shared foxholes with." Representing Bishop Vercoe in his claim is top Waitangi Tribunal and public law specialist Paul Harman - also the New Zealand legal representative for the pending $5 billion lawsuit against the Government. Harman said the claim was valid under the Treaty of Waitangi Act. "The sooner the government stops worrying about saving money and starts focusing on ensuring the needs of these veterans and their families are addressed the better," Harman said. Bishop Vercoe, a principal companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, led Maori on the 1998 Hikoi of Hope march to Parliament. But he said the Waitangi Treaty claim was his crowning achievement. "This is No 1 as far as I'm concerned,"," Bishop Vercoe said. "I think the veterans have been treated very badly since Vietnam. The nation has never recognized them and they went into a war zone that they were told wasn't a war zone. The local prisoners do better than us. They get compensation and we don't." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/11 Toxic Chemical Victim to be added to the list of 9/11 Victims 9/11 Victim List I guess you heard on the news that a person died from what was determined exposure to toxic chemicals (probably dioxins) (recall the NY Times article of concern of dioxins in the area) from the burning of the attack on the trade centers. This persons name will be added to the list of "victims of the attack itself." I wonder how that medical decision for a civilian was ascertained and how differently the process is compared to the NAS/IOM processes used to determine our Veteran Victim status in death and disability; not caused by terrorist but our own government. I would bet the decisions making process is like night and day; or Veterans controlled by the VA and an honest doctor's opinion. I wonder if that family will now be eligible for the millions in government compensations. If they did that for the Veteran Victims, it would take about four times the space we have now for the wall. In my opinion, just another government slap in the face to Veterans compared to civilians. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kelley

I thought the Seattle VARO was Bad. Then they sent my claim to St. Petersberg.

>I am going to ask my Doc on Medicare if he will write a prescription for me and just buy it myself. Im sorry to hear your still getting this type of treatment Pete. This is the model system the rest of the country wants to switch to? Maybe if they screw up enough, every one will pay for their own meds.

Jon, Yes I've had the same problem of C&P's not showing upgo to the records dept at the Spokane VAMC. REquest seeing your "Administrative Folder" records. They may hide favorable C&P's in there. Atleast, that's where mine was. You will not get any cooperation between any facilities. In state or between states. Seattle & Spokane VAMC's act like complete rivals at times. There records dept. do not coexist. Their medical records concerning you, ARE NOT linked by computers according to staff. Staff within the same facility can't find any of your records on their own computers, if they don't want to help you. Same at the RO. Get ahold of the your team Social Worker & the clinics Patient advocate. Theres some very good folks at Spokane. Let them try to get you help first. If you get no action in 24 hrs, then I would get on the horn to Sen Patty Murrays office followed by a fax & a letter. If you live in Idaho, try Sen Craig's office.

Hello Betrayed, the claims I've submitted for depression & chronic pain have been given the same treatment. They don't exist according to the VARO or BVA level. Health care for chronic pain hasn't been much better. The only long acting medication they will prescribe is Methadone. They say take it or take nothing. When I say I've tried it & didn't have a good reaction to it, with the other meds I have to take. Then they put in the records, that "the patient refuses", long acting pain meds. The only way I can recieve any kind of consistant pain relief, is to use what I know that works. I've had chronic pain during active duty up until today. I've tried most everything that is available. When you find something that takes away a miserable existance for a life, why would you refuse it? I've had several issues filed by me or my reps over the decades, as I discovered the evidence in records or through medical science. Many of these yrs I tried putting things together, with undiagnosed & untreated illnesses, such as TBI, MS, Hypertension, Ischemia, Fibromyalgia, Hypothyroidism, PTSD/Depression, ashma, COAD, Spinal Stenosis/Spondylosis, to list a few. I have alot of days where nothing works right. Mind, body or spirit, so it really plays with your mind when some types of pain go untreated, or your medications are suddenlly withheld or delayed. I use medicare for a private Dr & pay a couple hundred a month for long acting pain meds, since the VAMC refuses to supply them. I can now go to any non-VA pharmacy every month & make sure my prescription is continued on time, EACH month. It feels much better to not have to go through sudden medication withdrawals so often. I'm also not fond of health care personel, that laugh at you about a week or two into withdrawals & say, "what's wrong with Methadone, your going to get hooked on something"? My thoughts are, why die from something that provides bad results with combining my other meds?

fwd AO and Benzene Questions and Request for Help Below is a request for help associated to Myelofibrosis and exposures to Benzene mixed with AO or anyone that mixed AO with diesel, kerosene, and gasoline to spray. Actually, Fort Detrick, MD sent out an emergency directive in mid 1969 to MACV on how to decontaminate the used AO barrels in 1969. The reason was that used AO drums were being used to transport PLO also and when mixed with gas AO readily burned. The result was an internal combustion engine Agent Orange Aerosol Dispenser. How many Blue Suitors actually followed the decontamination instructions, as anybody knows that served in the Military, is questionable even after 1969 when the emergency directive came out. AO was always used with AW. AW contained Picloram, which had Hexachlorobenzene. The issue is we do not know how much was in there because it was conveniently of course DOW proprietary. We do know that in 1985 to re-qualify Picloram our EPA made DOW reduce the amount of Hexachlorobenzene. Reports have shown this is now at <100 parts per million but what it was in that toxic swill they used on us is at this time conveniently unknown. Government amnesia is somewhat convenient when it comes to VA claims and telling science exactly what we drank and ate. You might check with the 9th Infantry Division website – One of the 9th Infantry said a directive came out on how to use AO and Diesel fuel (50/50) injected into an tube on the exhaust manifold to make a mosquito fogger. I know some Marines drank boiled water out of the used AO and AW barrels prior to mid 1969. Therefore, it is doubtful they were decontaminated. We also cleaned canteens in the hot water. Best of luck. Marvin you can tell Congressman Gary Miller from me and millions of Veterans, we do not need anymore damn studies that the government can manipulate to hell and back while congress sits back with closed eyes and deaf ears. We spent 146 million dollars and 25 years on nothing but outcomes that are lies and more lies. What we need is some damn integrity in Congress and for them to let us speak, and then demand answers from our questions. Another damn study is the last thing we need – the data is there already in Odds Ratios and Risk Ratios. Someone just has to be honest about it and that at this time is not our own government. It seems clear that these herbicides and combination of herbicides can induce hematopoietic disorders either in autoimmune form or cancer form. Keep fighting - Kelley AO & Benzene, did you mix or spray it Mon May 21, 2007 10:43 am (PST) AO & Benzene, did you mix or spray it? Anyone who mixed AO with diesel, kerosene, gasoline to spray Please contact: derrickdecker@cox.net Purpose to get Myelofibrosis recognized as caused by AO, to prove AO was mixed http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp Long-term health effects of exposure to benzene The major effect of benzene from long-term exposure is on the blood. (Long-term exposure means exposure of a year or more.) Benzene causes harmful effects on the bone marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells, leading to anemia. It can also cause excessive bleeding and can affect the immune system, increasing the chance for infection. Some women who breathed high levels of benzene for many months had irregular menstrual periods and a decrease in the size of their ovaries. It is not known whether benzene exposure affects the developing fetus in pregnant women or fertility in men. Animal studies have shown low birth weights, delayed bone formation, and bone marrow damage when pregnant animals breathed benzene. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that benzene causes cancer in humans. Long-term exposure to high levels of benzene in the air can cause leukemia, cancer of the blood-forming organs. -----Original Message----- From: derrickdecker@cox.net [mailto:derrickdecker@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 1:25 PM To: colonel-dan: sbcglobal.net Subject: Help Colonel Dan, I need help finding anyone who sprayed Agent Orange in Vietnam. Anyone who mixed AO with diesel, kerosene, gasoline to spray. This is very important, possibly to hundreds, if not thousands of Vets. Can you put out the word? I have statements from New Zealand, Australian vets, but need 1st hand accounts from US Vets. I have a bone marrow disease Myelofibrosis, I'm terminal have 1 maybe two years, according to my DR. I have just completed my final BVA via a teleconference with a Judge in DC, April 30. I supplied information and my research regarding my illness. I have battled this claim for 4 years for recognition as caused by AO. My illness is one of many directly linked to Benzene, leukemias, etc. Mixing AO with kerosene, diesel fuel, gasoline to spray, directly caused my illness, and the many other cancers VETS are suffering from. This could answer many cases for Vets. The VA mandate to research AO, only included AO and its components. These studies were and are limited to just that, failing to recognize the total picture. Benzene is the cause of many Vets problems. My congressman, Gary Miller, CA has helped my effort. He suggests I write congress and suggest hearings regarding this, and allow congress to mandate further studies. I need to this for all the families and those Vets, fighting for other related diseases, unknowingly caused by Benzene. Having Myelofibrosis recognized as caused by AO, will open the door wide for those Vets, suffering MPD's Benzene is absolutely known to cause many cancers. Bone marrow depression, immunological deficiencies, etc Recognition will greatly advance the solutions for Vets. Look what Benzene causes online; you’ll see what I’m talking about. This, I pray will be a legacy of mine to help them. Testimonies of Vets, who mixed these deadly components, who support my premise. Please help, Marvin Derrick 519th MI Bn Vet 67-68 http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/C...amp;Benzene.htm

fwd AO and Benzene Questions and Request for Help Below is a request for help associated to Myelofibrosis and exposures to Benzene mixed with AO or anyone that mixed AO with diesel, kerosene, and gasoline to spray. Actually, Fort Detrick, MD sent out an emergency directive in mid 1969 to MACV on how to decontaminate the used AO barrels in 1969. The reason was that used AO drums were being used to transport PLO also and when mixed with gas AO readily burned. The result was an internal combustion engine Agent Orange Aerosol Dispenser. How many Blue Suitors actually followed the decontamination instructions, as anybody knows that served in the Military, is questionable even after 1969 when the emergency directive came out. AO was always used with AW. AW contained Picloram, which had Hexachlorobenzene. The issue is we do not know how much was in there because it was conveniently of course DOW proprietary. We do know that in 1985 to re-qualify Picloram our EPA made DOW reduce the amount of Hexachlorobenzene. Reports have shown this is now at <100 parts per million but what it was in that toxic swill they used on us is at this time conveniently unknown. Government amnesia is somewhat convenient when it comes to VA claims and telling science exactly what we drank and ate. You might check with the 9th Infantry Division website – One of the 9th Infantry said a directive came out on how to use AO and Diesel fuel (50/50) injected into an tube on the exhaust manifold to make a mosquito fogger. I know some Marines drank boiled water out of the used AO and AW barrels prior to mid 1969. Therefore, it is doubtful they were decontaminated. We also cleaned canteens in the hot water. Best of luck. Marvin you can tell Congressman Gary Miller from me and millions of Veterans, we do not need anymore damn studies that the government can manipulate to hell and back while congress sits back with closed eyes and deaf ears. We spent 146 million dollars and 25 years on nothing but outcomes that are lies and more lies. What we need is some damn integrity in Congress and for them to let us speak, and then demand answers from our questions. Another damn study is the last thing we need – the data is there already in Odds Ratios and Risk Ratios. Someone just has to be honest about it and that at this time is not our own government. It seems clear that these herbicides and combination of herbicides can induce hematopoietic disorders either in autoimmune form or cancer form. Keep fighting - Kelley AO & Benzene, did you mix or spray it Mon May 21, 2007 10:43 am (PST) AO & Benzene, did you mix or spray it? Anyone who mixed AO with diesel, kerosene, gasoline to spray Please contact: derrickdecker@cox.net Purpose to get Myelofibrosis recognized as caused by AO, to prove AO was mixed http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp Long-term health effects of exposure to benzene The major effect of benzene from long-term exposure is on the blood. (Long-term exposure means exposure of a year or more.) Benzene causes harmful effects on the bone marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells, leading to anemia. It can also cause excessive bleeding and can affect the immune system, increasing the chance for infection. Some women who breathed high levels of benzene for many months had irregular menstrual periods and a decrease in the size of their ovaries. It is not known whether benzene exposure affects the developing fetus in pregnant women or fertility in men. Animal studies have shown low birth weights, delayed bone formation, and bone marrow damage when pregnant animals breathed benzene. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that benzene causes cancer in humans. Long-term exposure to high levels of benzene in the air can cause leukemia, cancer of the blood-forming organs. -----Original Message----- From: derrickdecker@cox.net [mailto:derrickdecker@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 1:25 PM To: colonel-dan: sbcglobal.net Subject: Help Colonel Dan, I need help finding anyone who sprayed Agent Orange in Vietnam. Anyone who mixed AO with diesel, kerosene, gasoline to spray. This is very important, possibly to hundreds, if not thousands of Vets. Can you put out the word? I have statements from New Zealand, Australian vets, but need 1st hand accounts from US Vets. I have a bone marrow disease Myelofibrosis, I'm terminal have 1 maybe two years, according to my DR. I have just completed my final BVA via a teleconference with a Judge in DC, April 30. I supplied information and my research regarding my illness. I have battled this claim for 4 years for recognition as caused by AO. My illness is one of many directly linked to Benzene, leukemias, etc. Mixing AO with kerosene, diesel fuel, gasoline to spray, directly caused my illness, and the many other cancers VETS are suffering from. This could answer many cases for Vets. The VA mandate to research AO, only included AO and its components. These studies were and are limited to just that, failing to recognize the total picture. Benzene is the cause of many Vets problems. My congressman, Gary Miller, CA has helped my effort. He suggests I write congress and suggest hearings regarding this, and allow congress to mandate further studies. I need to this for all the families and those Vets, fighting for other related diseases, unknowingly caused by Benzene. Having Myelofibrosis recognized as caused by AO, will open the door wide for those Vets, suffering MPD's Benzene is absolutely known to cause many cancers. Bone marrow depression, immunological deficiencies, etc Recognition will greatly advance the solutions for Vets. Look what Benzene causes online; you’ll see what I’m talking about. This, I pray will be a legacy of mine to help them. Testimonies of Vets, who mixed these deadly components, who support my premise. Please help, Marvin Derrick 519th MI Bn Vet 67-68 http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/C...amp;Benzene.htm

Title: spurgeon.opn Author: USCVA Typist: USCVA UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS No. 95-956 David P. Spurgeon, Appellant, v. Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Decided April 15, 1997 ) Robert C. Rhodes was on the brief for the appellant. Mary Lou Keener, General Counsel; Ron Garvin, Assistant General Counsel; Thomas A. McLaughlin, Deputy Assistant General Counsel; and John D. McNamee were on the brief for the appellee. Before FARLEY, HOLDAWAY, and IVERS, Judges. IVERS, Judge: The appellant appeals a July 26, 1995, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) denying an increased rating for service-connected post-operative residuals of an osteoma removal currently rated 10% disabling. David P. Spurgeon, BVA 95-14582 (July 26, 1995). An osteoma is a benign, slow-growing mass of mature, predominantly lamellar ( thinly layered), bone. Stedman's Medical Dictionary 1269 (26th ed. 1995) [ hereinafter Stedman's]. The Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 7252(a). For the reasons set out below, the Court will vacate the Board's decision and remand the matter for further adjudication. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The appellant served on active duty in the United States Navy from July 1, 1973, until January 12, 1976. Record (R.) at 59. In January 1974, the appellant underwent surgery for the removal of an osteoid osteoma on his right wrist. R. at 22, 80. In March 1975, the appellant witnessed the gruesome death of his brother by an airplane propeller blade at Miramar Naval Air Station. R. at 54-56. A psychiatric examination conducted on December 18, 1975, revealed that the appellant was under great emotional stress and that he blamed the Navy for his brother's death. Id. The examining psychiatrist recommended immediate discharge on "psychiatric as well as humanitarian grounds." R. at 55. The appellant was honorably discharged in January 1976 for "unsuitability - apathy, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort effectively." R. at 59. The appellant filed for disability compensation on July 22, 1985, requesting service connection for psychological problems, right wrist tumor removal, and a right ankle problem. R. at 61-64. He was awarded service connection for post-operative residuals relating to his right wrist osteoma removal on November 18, 1985, rated noncompensable. R. at 101. The appellant was later awarded a non-service-connected disability rating for passive-aggressive personality disorder, rated 30% disabling. R. at 105-06. On December 1, 1986, the VA regional office (RO) increased to 10% the appellant's rating for residuals of a right wrist osteoma removal. R. at 127-28. In 1988, 1990, 1991, the appellant made additional requests for an increase which the RO denied. R. at 133, 175-76, 187. In August 1993 the appellant filed a VA Form 1-9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, perfecting his appeal to the Board and claiming service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). R. at 195. On January 11, 1993, the BVA remanded the claims for further adjudication and ordered the RO to afford the appellant a complete psychiatric examination and an orthopedic examination of his right wrist. R. at 247-52. On April 3, 1993, the appellant had a complete orthopedic examination to determine the severity of his wrist disorder. R. at 258-59, 268. During that examination, the physician noted: [The appellant] is not able to make a fist. He has a well-healed incision over the dorsum of his right distal radius. He demonstrates strength of interossei grip, abductor pollices, adductor pollices and opponens, but these are all decreased in strength. He states that he is numb in all of the fingers of his right hand. R. at 259. The physician observed that the appellant had 25° of dorsiflexion, 30° of palmar flexion, and 15° of ulnar and radial deviation in his right wrist. Ibid. With regard to the appellant's complaint of wrist pain, the examiner noted: The etiology, however, of his pain and lack of motion is not easily understood. He has had numerous bones [sic] scans, EMG's, etc., which apparently have shown nothing. . . . I am not entirely sure why he continues to have the degree of pain, etc.[,] that he has had. I do feel that there is probably a strong psychosocial overlay to this problem. Certainly if the bone scan is negative this rules out any bony pathology with regard to this. R. at 258-59. On March 10, 1993, the appellant underwent a VA psychiatric examination in which he was diagnosed with PTSD. R. at 263-67. The RO issued a rating decision on October 7, 1994, awarding the appellant service connection for PTSD rated at 30% disabling and continuing his 10% rating for post-operative residuals of the right wrist osteoma. R. at 285- 86. The appellant, through his service representative, notified the Board on June 14, 1995, that he believed the PTSD rating was fair and accurate but that he disagreed with the decision to deny an increased rating for his right wrist and hand. R. at 303. On July 26, 1995, the Board issued a final decision denying an increased rating for post-operative residuals on his right wrist based upon the results from the April 1993 orthopedic evaluation. Spurgeon, BVA 95-14582, supra; R. at 4-12. The appellant appealed this decision to the Court. II. ANALYSIS A. Claim for an Increased Rating Due to Pain The appellant argues, in his brief, that the examining physician did not adequately evaluate the severity of his right wrist pain and that he is entitled to an increased rating because he suffers functional loss of his hand due to pain. Appellant's Brief (Br.) at 11-12. The appellant's claim for an increased rating for a right wrist disorder under the rating schedule is "a new claim, and the Court reviews the Board's findings of fact regarding new claims under a 'clearly erroneous' standard of review." Cox v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 459, 460 (1994); see also 38 U.S.C. 7261(a)(4); Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 532, 535 (1993)(en banc ). "[T]his Court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the BVA on issues of material fact; if there is a `plausible' basis in the record for the factual determinations of the BVA, even if this Court might not have reached the same factual determinations, we cannot overturn them ." Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 53 (1990). The BVA is required to provide reasons or bases for any material factual or legal determination. See 38 U.S.C. 7104(d)(1); see also Webster v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 155, 159 (1991). Under 38 C.F.R. 4.40 (1996), the Board is required to consider the impact of pain in making its rating determination. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589, 593 (1991). The Board is required to provide a statement of its reasons and bases with respect to that aspect of the determination as well. Ibid (citin g Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 58). Although section 4.40 does not require a separate rating for pain, it does promulgate guidance for determining ratings under other diagnostic codes assessing musculoskeletal function. See generally 38 C.F.R. 4.71(a) (1996). The fact that a specific rating for pain is not required by section 4.40 does not relieve the BVA from its obligation to provide a statement of reasons or bases pertaining to that regulation. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 202, 207 ( 1995). During the examination, the physician evaluated the appellant's wrist with respect to his complaints of pain and expressly stated that he could find no etiological basis for the pain. R. at 259. The physician opined that there was "probably a strong psychosocial overlay" to the problem of pain. Ibid. The appellant argues that, if the pain were psychosocial, the physician should have referred him to a psychiatrist and the RO should have followed up on this recommendation. Appellant's Br. at 11. Although the appellant did undergo a complete VA psychiatric examination and was eventually diagnosed with PTSD, there was no consideration given to whether his painful wrist could be attributed to his psychiatric problems. R. at 260-67. A veteran may be awarded a disability for "Somatoform Disorders." See 61 Fed.Reg. 52695 (Oct. 8, 1996) (renaming 38 C.F.R. 4. 132, "Psychological Factors Affecting Physical Condition," DC 9500-9511, as 38 C.F.R. 4.130, DC 9421-9425, "Somatoform Disorders"). "Somatoform" refers to psychogenic symptoms resembling those of physical disease. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1545 (28th ed. 1994). In its decision, the BVA failed to discuss the appellant's pain, mention 38 C.F.R. 4.40, or discuss the possible link between the appellant's complaints and his service-connected psychiatric condition. Where the BVA has failed to provide adequate "reasons and bases" with respect to the role, if any, that pain played in its determination, a remand is required. See Hicks v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 417, 422 (1995); Voyles v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 451, 453 (1993) (remanding because "it was necessary for the BVA to address both the existence and extent of [the] appellant's pain, as well as any limitation of motion due to his service- connected disabilities"). B. Duty to Notify The appellant's claim should also be remanded for the Board's failure to notify the appellant that he was responsible for furnishing employment records to support his claim that his wrist disability affected his employment. A veteran is entitled to an extraschedular rating in "exceptional" cases "where the scheduler evaluations are found to be inadequate." 38 C. F.R. 3.321(b)(1) (1996). Under this regulation, an "exceptional" case is one which presents "such an exceptional or unusual disability picture with such related factors such as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization as to render impractical the application of the regular scheduler standards." Ibid. (emphasis added). The appellant testified that his wrist condition "quite disturbed" his work and that he had missed 800 hours of work at the U.S. Postal Service. R. at 207. He further argues that the VA failed to assist him by not seeking and obtaining records from the U.S. Postal Service showing that he had, in fact, missed 800 hours of work. Appellant's Br. at 11-13. Under the regulations governing VA's duty to assist: (b) When information sufficient to identify and locate necessary evidence is of record, the Department of Veterans Affairs shall assist a claimant by requesting, directly from the source, existing evidence which is either in the custody of military authorities or maintained by another Federal Agency . . . . © Should its efforts to obtain evidence prove unsuccessful for any reason which the claimant could rectify, the Department of Veterans Affairs shall so notify the claimant and advise him or her that the ultimate responsibility for furnishing evidence rests with the claimant. 38 C.F.R. 3.159(b),©; see also 38 U.S.C. 5106, 5107; White v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 519 (1991). The Secretary relies on the novel argument that the U.S. Postal Service is an independent establishment of the executive branch and, since it operates in a "business-like fashion, similar to other self-sustaining commercial ventures" the records in their possession cannot be deemed to be "in the possession of the Federal Government" for purposes of the regulation. Secretary's Br. at 8 (citing Counts v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 473, 478 (1994)). There is no evidence in the record that VA ever attempted to secure the appellant's employment records and no evidence that VA ever notified the appellant that he had the ultimate responsibility of furnishing the records. Whether or not the Postal Service is a federal agency as contemplated by 38 C.F.R. 3.159(b) is beside the point. Employment records, particularly those relating to lost time or sick leave, are generally highly confidential in nature and not releasable to anyone other than the employee without his written and specific release. Any argument or suggestion that VA could have or should have simply obtained these records, unilaterally, is misplaced. Having now recognized the possible importance of these records, it is unfortunate that the appellant, who could have obtained the records easier than the Secretary, did not do so. While there is certainly a duty to assist, such a duty does not relieve a claimant entirely from assisting himself. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) ("The duty to assist is not always a one-way street"). However, if VA could not or would not request the records, it had, at a minimum, an obligation to advise the appellant of their relevance to his claim. 38 C.F.R. 3.159©; 38 U.S.C. 5103(a); Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 69, 80 (1995) (Secretary has obligation to inform claimant what evidence is required to complete his claim). It did not. Therefore, a remand is required. See Lehman v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 339 (1991). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court VACATES the July 1995 decision of the Board and REMANDS the matter for further adjudication. On remand, the appellant may submit additional evidence and argument to support his claim. Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 129, 141 (1992).

Hello Betrayed, is this any help to you? Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS No. 02-1233 Dennis J. Hamilton, Appellant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary Of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Before IVERS, Chief Judge. MEMORANDUM DECISION Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a), this action may not be cited as precedent. IVERS, Chief Judge: The appellant, Dennis J. Hamilton, appeals from a July 5, 2002, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) that denied entitlement to service connection for a left elbow disability and denied entitlement to service connection for arthralgias of multiple joints, claimed as a chronic disability resulting from an undiagnosed illness. The appellant, through counsel, filed a brief and a reply brief, and the Secretary filed a brief. This appeal is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 7252(a). Summary disposition is appropriate under Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23 (1990). For the reasons stated herein, the Court will remand the appellant's left elbow condition claim and affirm the Board decision with respect to the service connection claim for arthralgias of multiple joints. I. FACTS The appellant had active duty service in the U.S. Marine Corps from September 1973 to March 1978 and in the U.S. Army from November 1990 to August 1991, including service in the Persian Gulf from January 1991 to July 1991. Record (R.) at 20, 22. Service medical records (SMRs) indicate that in January 1991, the appellant complained of left arm pain following physical training that was subsequently diagnosed as tendinitis. R. at 106. In April 1991, his left elbow pain was diagnosed as olecranon bursitis. R. at 108. The appellant complained of occasional left elbow pain in August 1991, but demonstrated full range of motion on examination and x-rays did not indicate swelling or signs of trauma. R. at 126. The appellant was diagnosed with tendinitis of the left elbow. Id. The appellant underwent Desert Storm medical evaluations in February 1995 and March 1995. R. at 124, 130-37. The appellant complained of arthralgia in the left elbow. R. at 124. Arthralgia is defined as "pain in a joint." Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 147 (27th ed. 1988 ). The examination report noted a normal chest, no significant abnormality in the knees, and bilateral bony spurs in the elbows. R. at 135. The appellant filed a claim for compensation in July 1996 for disabilities of the joints, including the knees, elbows, and hands. R. at 140-44. During a VA examination in September 1996, the appellant claimed to have spontaneously developed pain in both wrists and both knees while serving in the Persian Gulf. R. at 151. Although there was no history of swelling or injury in those joints, the appellant stated his joints "hurt all the time." Id. The examining physician reported full range of motion in the appellant's joints and could detect "no objective evidence of organic pathology in the left elbow, the right wrist, left wrist, right knee or left knee." In addition, "x-rays of the [] joints [were] made to verify this impression." R. at 152. The regional office (RO) notified the appellant in July 1997 that additional evidence was necessary to substantiate his claim. R. at 189-91. In September 1998, the appellant submitted a statement of a person who served with him during Desert Storm and in civilian life corroborating that the appellant had frequently complained of joint pain. R. at 197. The RO denied service connection for left elbow tendinitis and multiple arthralgias in April 1999. R. at 200-04. The appellant filed an appeal later that same month. R. at 206. The Board remanded the appeal to the RO with instructions to gather additional medical records. The RO considered the additional medical records in October 2000 and issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) denying the claim. R. at 251-67 . The Board again remanded the appellant's claim following the enactment of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106- 475, 3, 114 Stat. 2096, 2096-97 (2000) (codified at 38 U.S.C. 5103- 5103A). R. at 271-74. In July 2001, the appellant indicated that he did not have additional evidence to submit in support of his claim. R. at 276. The RO issued an SSOC in September 2001 that again denied the appellant's claim for service connection. R. at 283-93. The RO stated that there was no evidence that either condition was incurred in, or aggravated by, the appellant's service. R. at 292. II. ANALYSIS The Court notes the applicability of the VCAA to the appellant's claim. However, because neither party has raised the issue, the Court will not address the matter. See Maxson v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 241, 242 (2001) (per curiam order); Tellex v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 233, 240 (2001). A. Left Elbow Disability The Secretary concedes that the appellant's service connection claim for a left elbow disability should be remanded because the Board decision reaches contradictory conclusions regarding evidence of objective pathology. Secretary's Brief (Br.) at 6. After reviewing the record, the Court agrees and will remand the left elbow claim so that the Board may provide an adequate statement of the reasons and bases as to the question of whether the appellant's left elbow condition is supported by evidence of objective pathology. 38 U.S.C. 7104(d)(1). B. Arthralgia Claim The appellant attributes his arthralgia disability to an undiagnosed illness resulting from his service in the Persian Gulf War from January 1991 to July 1991. Appellant's Br. at 5-6. As a Persian Gulf War veteran, the appellant's disability claim is evaluated pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1117 ( 2004). Section 1117 and 38 C.F.R. 3.317 authorize the Secretary to compensate a Persian Gulf War veteran who "exhibits objective indications of a qualifying chronic disability" that became manifest either (1) during active duty in the Southwest Asia theater of operations, or (2) to a degree of 10% or more within the presumptive period following service in the region. 38 U.S.C. 1117(a)(1)(A) and (B) (2004); 38 C.F.R. 3.317(a)( 1) (2003). In regulation, the Secretary defined the presumptive period as " not later than December 31, 2006." 38 C.F.R. 3.317(a)(1)(i) (2003). A " qualifying chronic disability" is defined as a chronic disability resulting from an undiagnosed illness; a medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness, that is characterized by a cluster of symptoms, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome; or any illness the Secretary determines warrants presumption of service connection. 38 U.S.C. 1117(a)( 2); 38 C.F.R. 3.317(a)(2)(i). For purposes of section 1117, " 'objective indications of chronic disability' include both 'signs,' in the medical sense of objective evidence perceptible to an examining physician, and other, non-medical indicators that are capable of independent verification." 38 C.F.R. 3.317(a)(3) (2003). In the decision on appeal, the Board evaluated the appellant's SMRs and determined that "the record does not contain medical evidence of onset of multiple joint arthralgias during the [appellant's] active military service." R. at 15. The Board then addressed whether his condition was manifest to a degree of 10% or more during the presumptive period following service. R. at 12. Since the appellant's chief complaint was arthralgia in multiple joints and joint pain may be a manifestation of an undiagnosed illness for section 1117 purposes, the Board stated that the appellant's claimed disability met the definition of "qualifying chronic disability." R. at 12. The Board evaluated the appellant's condition by analogy to degenerative arthritis (38 C.F.R. 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5003) and fibromyalgia (38 C.F.R. 4.71a, DC 5025). R. at 13. 38 U.S.C . 1117(g)(5); see also 38 C.F.R. 3.317(b)(5). In each instance, the Board found that, although the appellant had "subjective complaints of multiple joint pain, medical examiners have not found clinical evidence of compensable disability such as limitation of motion, instability[,] or subluxation of a joint." R. at 16. The Board also found that there were " no objective indications of disability, i.e., signs in the sense of objective evidence perceptible to an examining physician, or other, non- medical indicators that are capable of independent verification." Id. Before the Court, the appellant asks for a reversal of the Board decision. Appellant's Br. at 19. The appellant acknowledges that "the Board was correct that the symptoms complained of were similar to arthritis or fibromyalgia," but contends that these diagnostic codes "did not adequately reflect the degree of disability." Appellant's Br. at 9. The appellant argues that "ince the condition for which the [ appellant] seeks compensation is defined as being 'undiagnosed[,]' it is inconsistent with the regulatory and statutory provisions relating to Persian Gulf Syndrome to deny a rating based on a failure to meet [the diagnostic] criteria of other diseases." Id. Although the appellant denies the implication that his condition is psychosomatic in origin or that he suffers from a mental illness, he argues that his disability is more analogous to a neurogenic condition than to an organic disability. Appellant's Br. at 10. The appellant claims that his condition is more similar to somatization disorder (DC 9421), pain disorder (DC 9422), and conversion disorder (DC 9424), and the Board erred in not applying the DCs for these conditions to his disability. Id. The Court may set aside the Board's selection of a DC in a particular case only if such selection is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 38 U.S.C. 7261(a)( 3)(A); Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet.App. 119, 125 (1999); Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 532, 538-39 (1993) (en banc) ("VA and the BVA possess specialized expertise in identifying and assessing the medical nature of a claimed condition, and their application of a particular [DC] to a particular condition is due . . . deference."). Although the Board's selection of the proper DC is entitled to deference under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review, the Board is nevertheless obligated to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases explaining why it selected a particular DC by analogy over another possible analogous DC. See Suttmann v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 127, 133 (1993); see also Butts, 5 Vet.App. at 538. The appellant's contentions are unavailing in light of the evidence of record and the plain language of 38 U.S.C. 1117 and 38 C.F.R. 3.317 . A claimant seeking service connection under section 1117 must provide " objective indications of chronic disability' includ[ing] both 'signs' in the medical sense of objective evidence perceptible to an examining physician, and other, non-medical indicators that are capable of independent verification." 38 C.F.R. 3.317(a)(3). The medical examinations of February and March 1995 and September 1996 indicate that the appellant has full range of motion in his joints and there is no objective medical evidence, or nonmedical evidence capable of independent verification, of organic pathology in his joints. Accordingly, the appellant does not "exhibit objective indications of a qualifying chronic disability," nor has he alleged that such indications exist, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 3.317(a)(3) and demonstrate entitlement to compensation pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1117. In addition, the Board did not err in evaluating the appellant's arthralgia by analogy to degenerative arthritis and fibromyalgia. The appellant has consistently described his condition as pain in multiple joints and there is no evidence suggested by the appellant that his condition is neurogenic in origin. Indeed, the appellant expressly avoids any suggestion that his condition is anything other than organic in nature and essentially agrees with the Board's reliance on these analogous DCs. Appellant's Br. at 9-10. In the absence of a diagnosis consistent with a neurogenic origin for his disability, the appellant would have the Board engage in the same type of conjectural use of analogous ratings that is expressly prohibited by 38 C.F.R. 4.20 (2003): "Conjectural analogies will be avoided, as will the use of analogous ratings for conditions of doubtful diagnosis, or for those not fully supported by clinical or laboratory findings." The appellant has not demonstrated that the DCs relied on by the Board in its decision were "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance of law." The Court will affirm the Board decision with respect to the appellant's claim of service connection for multiple arthralgias. III. CONCLUSION On consideration of the record on appeal and the pleadings, the July 5, 2002, Board decision is AFFIRMED IN PART with respect to its denial of entitlement to service connection for arthralgia of multiple joints, claimed as a chronic disability resulting from an undiagnosed illness, and VACATED and REMANDED IN PART for readjudication of the claim for service connection for a left elbow disability. DATED: September 23, 2004 Copies to: Samuel M. Tumey, Esq. P.O. Box 113 Liberty, MS 39645 General Counsel (027) Department of Veterans Affairs 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420

Hello Jody, welcome to hadit. I went through the same thing on the USS Twining. 5" mounts. Do you suffer with any concussion effects from artillery trauma? Depression? Loss of balance? Visual problems, insomnia? Headaches? The "eighth nerve" can also be damaged by the air concussion. If your tinitus comes & goes away, theres no need to file . Tinnitus has to be constant in order to recieve a rating. It is a single rating at this time for"bilateral" tinnitus, of 10% For hearing loss? There are many offers in the yellow pages, that provide "free" hearing examinations for loss & tinnitus. Some county or state health dept. also offer hearing tests. Get one & submit it as evidence as well as the C&P they give you. It's good to have several. They gave me hearing aides, but it doesn't help with normal speech tones. Im constantly misinterpreting what is said. Have to have the wife face me sometimes so I can understand her. I recieved 0% for the hearing loss. The adiology clinic at the Spokane VAMC, provides excellent care. Same for the eye clinic & therapy.

It ain't easy to nail them down, but it can be done. They flip/flop all over the place & try to stick it to you if they can. The local hearing is the quickist, as far as getting results. I would keep your currant POA, untill after the hearing. Request in writing that you want your AL service officer be present. IF, your still not able to get any help from your service officer(SO) after the hearing, than request the change of power of attorney, (POA) I've tried many, but prefer the PVA.

Hello rdawg, "ANY" delay, means they don't have to pay. It''s easier to understand how it all works, if you think of assistance to proccess your claim, as a constant obstical. If your told they can't, 99.9% of the time, they probably can. If your told they don't have it, 99.9% of the time they do. If they tell you they will take care of it, they won't. If you have already submited the evidence & they have the claim, request a "FORMAL" local hearing in writing, from your VA regional office. Resubmit everything at the hearing, "under oath" & recorded. That will get the ball rolling & start the clock on the claim, as far as getting them to acknolledge it has been filled. ANYTHING submited "under oath", is "evidence of the record". good luck! PS..... have you ever tried to nail a catfish's head to a board? It's alot like that. ################################################

I would think loss of or loss of use for conditions resulting from toxic exposures, such as atrophy of the testicle or overy, or from cancers, etc would also be considered. Would ovarian cysts fall into loss of use?

Thanks Tom, that was what I needed.

Does anyone know where I can find the information for attorneys looking to represent Veterans? I have an attorney in CA interested in representing Vets. I would like to help him get started in the right direction Thanks for any replies. Allan

I ended up having seisures while taking Gabapentin/Nerontin Zolpidem tartrate (Ambein) Citolopram (Celexia) Clonazepam (alternative Sleep) Gabapaestin (Muscle Relaxers) Cyclobenzaprine (Blocks Nerve Pain) Loratide (Claritin) Azelatine (Nasal) Beconaze AQ (Nasal) Meloxicam (Arthritis) NSAID Flunoside Doctors should not prescrib more than one antidepressent at a time. Taking more than one may cause a toxic effect & you may die from it as a result. Don't let them give you zoloft for an antidepressent, Trazadone for sleep, another for fibromyalgia or yet another for pain & or anxiety. Benadryl is also prescribed for insomnia. Keep your antidepressent intake to "ONE" type only at a time. Don't mix them.

>Has anybody on this forum been reffered by their doctor to have a Home Exercise program (Physical Therapy) due to medical problems. I remember being recomended for it, but was a few yrs ago. Never heard anymore about it since i'm not SC for it yet. Was sent to PT at the VAMC. Recieved some exersize printouts & a tenz unit that doesn't work. Right leg has atrophied an inch. Left arm has lost ROM.