Ed Ball

Berta appreciate the compliments, yes it was a lot of work, but I hate to lose when it comes to being a veterans advocate. I despise the VA's language "duty to assist" and attempt to fill in the gaps with what they don't want us to know. We can only hope and pray they update their ships list with additional ships, but I am truly skeptical. Case in point, USS Vogelgesang (DD-862) ran a naval gunfire support mission, in country Vietnam for some pinned down troops, on 18 and 19 August 1966, traversing inner waterways in country, killing 70 VC and wounding 40 others. The only indication they were in country was the lat and long in the 0800 entry confirmed by ship electronics and visual on their Deck Logs. I won the case through appeal by schooling the VARO on Quartermaster 3 & 2 correspondence course and the preparation of Deck Logs as an official record signed by the Commanding Officer. As well as the limitation/range of their 5" guns. That ship failed to make the list for more than a year. I provided the information to the ships webmaster, and other crewmembers have won cases with the appropriate Deck Logs, and it is now on the list. But the process is indeed tainted. USS Floyd B Parks DD-884 as noted above, although on the list for a specific date, Feb & Mar 1968 up the Saigon river, still does not reflect the water barges alongside at anchorage in Da Nang on the VA ship list. Here again I've provided the Deck Logs to the ship's association along with the IOM comments. Fleet Ocean Tugs (ATF) I submitted a list of those operating in support of salvage ops, and battlegroups out to sea, but the VACO is reluctant to include them, along with the MSO's known to go alongside ships to take on potable (fresh) water at sea, and especially inport. Still no hull designators to make them presumptive. In 1988 our ship was Minesweeper Mothership, MSO's came alongside every evening to take on water, fuel, stores and fresh provisions while in the Persian Gulf. Sad state when the VA Central Office doesn't understand naval capabilities, yet finds it right to deny them of benefits they earned! I was on USS Dubuque LPD-8 in 1985 to 1988, they used the same equipment to get the troops ashore. Amphibs are at the bottom of the barrel for naval budgeting in many instances. According to MACV Monkey Mountain was sprayed with Agent Purple, which is even more toxic than Agent Orange in 1964. The reservoir was in existence well before that, a known source of water for the French troops and may be assumed contaminated by spray mist and possible runoff during monsoons. Of course Operation Ranch Hands worked on the Tarmac across the river at NSA Da Nang airfield. One area that boggles my mind, if IOM was so concerned with water from Vietnam, why didn't they emphasis contamination at the Dairy factory that produced milk, cottage cheese, and ice cream at NSA Da Nang? I'm sure you're both proud of your daughter, albeit with him looking down and smiling! Sounds like a fine lady. I worked with an ASA veteran that was involved with some hairy intel in Vietnam, pretty tight lipped bunch. As a retired Chief Petty Officer, Vietnam and Blue Water Navy cases will always be near and dear to me, whether the VA can afford it or not! I've always took care of my sailors, and not about to quit now! Enjoy your weekend! Ed

Noise and Military Service; Implications for Hearing Loss and Tinnitus (2006) is the Institute of Medicines findings and presentation to the VA Secretary which deals with a lot of history throughout the DOD, addressing such things as "whisper exams" that fail to register the upper frequency ranges or loss thereof which is what Bilateral SNHL is all about. Lack of documentation, and a wealth of other information. Did you know that prior to 1978 a bonafide DOD Hearing Conservation Program to safeguard hearing loss did not exist. One exception the USAF did in fact conduct audiograms on select personnel from the late 50s forward. Do not be surprised in your VA Denial letters to find those serving prior to 1978 to have had an audiogram during their induction physical, but a whisper exam upon separation. The VA C&P examiners frequently refer to your hearing being normal upon separation, therefore the military did not cause your hearing loss. The VARO will concede your traumatic acoustic events and further noise environments, but will side with the medical evidence (by law) each and every time. Solution? Private Audiology Medical Opinions, the doctor will review all information in your VA Claims folder, and list the items they reviewed on their office letterhead, with the statement they have reviewed, then have the doctor remark as to "as least as likely as not" (equal to or greater than 50%) or "more likely than not" (greater than 50%) due to traumatic acoustic events endured during his/her military service, followed by medical reasoning as to why. The doctor will date and sign their letter and insert their credentials behind their name. (You may want to request copies of your military treatment records if you don't already have copies in order to challenge the VARO decision) Today I get the private medical opinions before submitting the claims. That way if the VA C&P Examiner determines the military didn't cause your hearing loss (negative opinion), I have the Private Medical Opinion (positive) and they cancel each other out. Then the RVSR within VARO is left with reviewing the remaining positive evidence in your claims folder, if available, and provide the veteran the benefit of doubt. 38 U.S. Code § 5107 - Claimant responsibility; benefit of the doubt Hearing protection devices; there are various designs, based on noise levels in your work environment; that have what are referred to as Noise Reduction Ratings to preclude hearing loss. These did not exist, in my case prior to 1979. Years ago, while in the Navy, I noticed engineers would wear what we called Mickey Mouse ears, to help attenuate the noise in their work space. These items were shared, gaskets wore out after extensive use and personnel continued wearing them without a proper seal. Their workspace would require at least a double flange and ideally a triple flange hearing protection device along with the ear muffs to preclude hearing loss. Problem being, they had to be removed in order to communicate, receive orders in conventional engineering spaces due to noise levels. News flash! There is no test for Tinnitus. VA will attempt to state otherwise, but the American Tinnitus Association and their very own DOVA JRRD Vol 46, number 5, 2009 pages 619-632 states "Special audiological tests are effective in detecting deliberate exaggeration of hearing loss, but no documented test exists that is capable of detecting the presence or absence of tinnitus." Furthermore, you are authorized to diagnose Tinnitus; for this very reason. Define the traumatic acoustic event you were exposed to that caused your Tinnitus since military service. 105mm Howitzers 185dB, M-16 156dB, flight deck on aircraft carriers 136dB are but just a few areas of impulse noise levels that exceed OSHA 90dB exposure in an eight hour period. Here is a further recommendation by Veterans Law Blog: Draft a Sworn Declaration – do not use VA Form 21-4138 – with the following information: (I've used the 21-4138 with success) List each and every incident of significant noise exposure you can remember – and give enough detail to show that the exposure was significant and credible Grenade blasts, artillery rounds, simulators, constant machine-gun fire, years around loud jet or tank engines, you get the idea. Don’t OVERDO it…1-3 sentences should suffice, but identify if you can the approximate month and year of the noise exposure. State approximately when you remember the tinnitus starting. If it started in service, explain why you didn’t seek medical treatment in service (for most Veterans, explaining the reality of military service to bureaucrats will suffice: no soldier, sailor, or airmen is going to stop a mission or training to seek treatment for a condition that everybody has and that there is no cure for. True Story). Identify the chronicity of your tinnitus – has it been continuous since exposure to the noise? If yes, explain that you have had this ringing since the exposure to noise. Identify the frequency of your tinnitus – how often do you have ringing in the ears? Every day? Twice a week? 4 times a month? Identify the severity of your tinnitus. I think you need only do this if your tinnitus is so severe that it is debilitating, prevents you from working, or in very rare cases, is “objective tinnitus”, meaning it can be heard by other people standing next to you. In these cases, you might be able to seek an extra-schedular rating for the tinnitus in excess of the 10% limit in the Schedule of Impairment Ratings.

Appreciate the Welcome Aboard! Hoping to make some further contributions in the future. I've worked Rossie and John Wells, so familiar with them and numerous others. Just receive a call over the weekend from a family member of a Blue Water Navy veteran that won his AO claim while at anchorage in Vung Tau based on water barges, and sadly received noticed yesterday he has passed, but the key issue is the surviving spouse will be eligible for DIC benefits. Another key factor for numerous Blue Water Navy veterans is the VA contention that no one ran their water distillation plants in the harbors of Vietnam because of the contamination. Which is not true. We know that the USS Sanctuary (AH-17) did in fact run their water distillation system at Da Nang Harbor anchorage as noted in their 1967 Cruise Book. They took it a step further and explained how the system worked. Now of course we all know that a Public Affairs Officer relies on his/her committee to develop the Cruise Book, but the final signature will come from the Commanding Officer for official release. Making it an official document. I have had numerous Blue Water Navy naval gunfire support and Operation Market Time shipmates setting across my desk stating they ran their plants 24/7 up and down the coast of Vietnam. As you mentioned, estuarial waters were rampant in those areas. Each time the ship anchored, the contaminated sediment from the ocean floor was taken up by evaporators into the water distillation systems and enriched 10 times as noted by IOM in their peer review of Australia's Mortality Study of 2005. But we keep marching forward, and share things the VA would rather we not know.

Did you know that Seabees provided upgrades to an open water reservoir on Monkey Mountain capable of holding 1.9M gals of freshwater daily noted by Public Works? They created the dam, installed pumps, and an eight inch water pipeline as tracked by MACV HQs in their since declassified Monthly Summaries (I went to the NSA Danang section of the reports). For years, I knew this, but wondered where the 8 inch pipeline went? Until I found a crewmember of YW-101 (Navy Water Barge capable of 200,000 gals of potable water), that hooked up to a buoy in Tien Sha Cove and attached the 8 inch pipeline to fill his water barge to replenish visiting ships inport. The crew kept a journal daily, with dates, name of ships, and how much water was given. But unfortunately, these journals were not deemed worthy of records retention by our National Archives. MACV Monthly Summaries tracked monthly how much water was given to visiting ships, but from 1968 on, there is no records, although the barges were known to operate and assigned through 1972. The Institute of Medicine (IOM), now known as the National Academy of Medicine, previously addressed receiving water from Vietnam, stating those ships docked while in port Vietnam, would be entitled to presumptive exposure to Agent Orange, for the time they received water. (Hotel Services may be listed in your ships Deck Log). But, they said nothing of Navy Water Barges. In Da Nang I have found three such barges, YW-101, YW-115 and YW-128. In Vung Tau I found YW-126. If you know the dates of port visits, check for Deck Logs that show YW's port/starboard and advise the VA water barges alongside to replenish fresh water. i.e., On Friday, 09 January 1970, USS Floyd B. Parks (DD-884), at anchorage in Da Nang Harbor, RVN, at 1130 Received YW-101 to Port to receive water. On Wednesday, 14 January 1970, At 0905 YW-115 came alongside to Port. 0951 YW-115 away to Port. etc.. This becomes significant in that IOM advised the VA Secretary, "If a ship docked and took on potable water from Vietnam, crew members would have been eligible for a presumption of herbicide exposure only for the time the ship was docked (VA, 2008)." So how do you find the dates of port visits? If your ship is capable of naval gunfire support missions after May 1966 you may want to look at the dates noted in NARA CONGA reports. Look for a break between days of NGFS missions, then request your Deck Logs. The National Archives at College Park 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001 Another means is by referring to a spreadsheet I've developed that based on your ships Vietnam Service Medal, will give you the dates you operated in support of the war efforts in Vietnam. This spreadsheet shows the ships that are on the VA ships list (noted in RED font in the Remarks section) along with the ships that the Navy Secretary has advised members of Congress supported the war effort. (This of course being a work in progress, and is in no means meant to be official for VA purposes. But is a good tool for further research.) You may want to look for Command History Reports periodically, more are posted daily, so keep checking, they will advise dates upon arrival in port on the majority of occasions.

We understand, by law, that the VA will only recognize those on the dates posted in their regulations, "But!" I would take it a step further and challenge the longevity of dioxin and it's life cycle in the soil. The basis of this logic stems from the Hatfield Group Inc's Agent Orange Reports and soil, water, aquatic vegetation, fish, and breast milk samples obtained in 2004/2005, Vietnam Operation Ranch Hand missions ceased in 1972. This company was funded by the Ford Foundation to do so. We find that soil samples along the Da Nang tarmac was 365 times the acceptable global standards. Ben Hoi airfield the soil sample was 1,000 times the acceptable global standards. So my immediate question is "what makes the DMZ of Korea any different?" Also, you may want to research the safety precautions taken by the USAID Remediation Efforts in Da Nang "today" and ask yourselves, why are their personnel wearing protective clothing/hazmat suits? Just the safety guidelines they've undertaken to ensure a safe cleanup of the environment leaves many VA related questions about the extent of dioxin contamination on the DMZ today unanswered. That in itself would be a wonderful guideline for private medical opinions for those serving outside of the dates cited by VA. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is the United States Government agency primarily responsible for administering civilian foreign aid. Ask yourselves, why does our government bankroll cleanup efforts of dioxin in Vietnam, but fails to support veterans who are serving, or have served on Korea's DMZ outside of the dates regulated by the VA? I fully believe there is more than enough medical evidence to prove the life cycle of herbicides within soil that will continue to debilitate men and women serving until a major cleanup is made of the Korean DMZ much like those efforts being taken in Vietnam today.