Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

kpriessman

Seaman
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kpriessman

  • Birthday 01/31/1952

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    kpriessman@msn.com
  • Website URL
    http://tmai18.spaces.live.com
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    k9usafret@att.net

Profile Information

  • Location
    Vernon
  • Interests
    Vet Advocate

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
    100%
  • Branch of Service
    Air Force

Recent Profile Visitors

847 profile views

kpriessman's Achievements

  1. Please see the following attachments. http://www.oocities.org/usarsupthai2002/campfriendship.htm
  2. Try this, it is being recommended by some influential advocates in very high places (Same place the December C&P came from)! Follow the instructions, the more specific the information the better!!! Examples: Travel Voucher for DD Form 899, AA-2196, dated 7/29/1971, 320th Security Police Squadron to 635th Security Police Squadron, with travel on or about 10/17/1971; Travel Voucher for Emergency Leave, TE-340, dated 12/8/1972, 388th Security Police Squadron, with travel on or about 12/8/1972 with return on or about 1/6/1973; Travel Voucher for DD Form 899, AB-5116, dated 8/23/1973, and supplemented by SO AB-6816, 388th Security Police Squadron to 18th TFW, dated 11/13/1973 with travel on or about 11/27/1973. Form fillable SF Forms 180's can be found here: http://contacts.gsa....$file/sf180.pdf Obtaining Information for Records.pdf Requesting Documents Revised.pdf
  3. I agree with both Berta and John. First, I'd like to see the sequence of the claim and whether they somehow "closed the claim". If not, I would look at what their logic was for assigning a particular effective date. Berta, if my memory serves me correctly, Nehmer is not ablout boots on the ground, it's about AO and the right to retro, so in my mind it doesn't matter where the exposure was, Nehmer still applies. In lieu of a request for reconsideration, I might suggest a call to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee stating your case and an immediate request for DRO.
  4. Berta, I can only venture a guess, and that is because it is the first big place known. I would ask Wayne Dwernychuk from Hatfield that question. His email is wdyernychuck@telus.net if you don't already have his email.
  5. Office_of_the_Under_Secretary_of_Defense.doc
  6. RThomas; While we may not believe it, what the VA is saying is that if you worked on the perimeter, then you might have been exposed. I understand your frustration, but no one has found anymore evidence than what I had declassified. I feel it would be almost impossible to claim exposure through food or water despite evidence that would suggest this. Try Item 0318 from the Alvin Young Agent Orange Collection, Letter to Mrs Cleary. K9USAFRet Item_00318_Letter_to_Mrs._Cleary_Highlighted.pdf
  7. Thanks Pete, I wish I did also. Wonder sometimes how we vets survive the constant attempts of the DVA to deny legitimate claims. I think this one is a win for us, since I always try to have a powerful ally to show them they can't always get away with it.
  8. Friends, I apologize, I do not often get here, my efforts are sometimes muddled by my many sticks in the fire. The FAST Letter is not an effort for presumption, it is an effort to deny. Here is my response: 1. Attached you will find a excerpt of "The History of the US Department of Defense Programs for the Testing, Evaluation, and Storage of Tactical Herbicides", December 2006, by Mr. Alvin L. Young, the expert for AO used by the DOD and the DVA. Please refer to the highlighted page in which Mr. Young clearly states that "the exception to these Directives was the development of the "Tactical Herbicides" sprayed in combat military operations in Vietnam, or by Department of State approval…" and that "Herbicides used in Operation RANCH HAND for defoliation and crop destruction projects, and by the US Army Chemical Corps for vegetation control on perimeters, cache sites, and similar militarily-important targets were classified as "Tactical Herbicides"…" 2. Attached you will find a copy of "Item 318, Letter: To Mrs. Cleary from Alvin L. Young Regarding Use of Herbicides in Southeast Asia" from the National Agriculture Library, Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange Container List. Again Mr. Young is the expert for AO used by the DOD and the DVA. Please refer to the highlighted pages in which Mr. Young clearly states: "The two herbicides - - known as , 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T - - are used extensively in most countries of both the free world and the communist bloc for selective control of undesirable vegetation. These chemicals are better for vegetation control than other compounds of a similar nature because they are not harmful to people, animals, soil or water…" "The two chemicals, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T, are now in regular use, particularly for weed control in rice paddies, other field and horticultural crops, and rangeland, in Asian countries such as Burma, Thailand, Philippines, Republic of China, Japan, India, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. The herbicides are being used by the government of the Republic of Vietnam in the guerrilla warfare with the Viet Cong in order to increase visibility on the ground and from the air. At low rates of application, the herbicides wither the leaves and cause them to fall from the plants, but jungle plants usually regrow in about 30 days. At higher rates of application, the herbicides will cause defoliation, kill the top growth of brush, plants and trees, and prevent regrowth for a year or more..." "Scientists have long known that the herbicides 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T are not toxic to people or animals. The two chemicals are registered in the United States by the Department of Agriculture for use on food crops, in rivers and ponds, and on rangelands where livestock graze. They are available for purchase throughout the United States and are labeled nonpoisonous." The document clearly does not differentiate between "tactical" and "commercial" herbicides contrary to FAST Letter 09-20 and there are no relevant or referenced documents which in fact make a distinction between the two, it concludes the two are one and the same and uses the term herbicides. 3. Attached you will find a copy of "USMACTHAI/J USMAGTHAI, Mission Policy on Base Defense", 1 Nov 69, from AFHRA FOIA 07-066, 21 Sept 07; please refer to Page 4. The document clearly states the requirement to obtain US Embassy (State Department) approval for "soil sterilization and/or defoliation operations". This document was purposely omitted from references in FAST Letter 09-20. 4. Attached you will find a excerpt of "Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report - Base Defense in Thailand" (Declassified) from AFHRA FOIA 07-066, 21 Sept 07; please refer to Pages 58, 64, 66, 67, 68, and 75 for additional information on vegetation control at U-Tapao and other Thailand bases . The report clearly states that permission was obtained and received from the US Embassy (State Department) for use of herbicides. Despite attempts to change procedures previously stated in M21-1MR, the fact remains that neither the Air Force Declassification Office nor Headquarters VBA Compensation & Pension Services has forwarded these documents to JSRRC. Additionally, FAST Letter 09-20 uses irrelevant documents, new "terms", and omits pertinent data that clearly links the necessity to get State Department permission to use tactical herbicides with the policies for use of herbicides in Thailand with the factual statements that permission was obtained from the State Department when used. The evidence is incontrovertible and provides positive evidence that Tactical Herbicides were used despite attempts to use selective information to negate it. My efforts continue through appropriate channels in the hopes this farce might be stopped. Sincerely, Kurt Priessman Item_00318_Letter_to_Mrs._Cleary_Highlighted.pdf The_History_of_the_US_Department_of_Defense_Programs_for_the_Testing__Evaluation__and_Storage_of_Tactical_Herbicides_Excerpt.pdf USMACTHAI_JUSMAGTHAI_Mission_Policy_on_Base_Defense.pdf
  9. Playing the VA Game (Haas re-realized), I say this only because many are sorely disappointed in the VA and the Supreme Court; however, hope reigns eternal. While I, with many have hope that Congress may do what is right, that will take everyone's maximum grassroots effort to push those in Congress to support his new bill. In the meantime, let us revisit BWN claims. You've now been denied presumptive exposure, that is a given; however, 'Notwithstanding the aforementioned provisions relating to presumptive service connection, which arose out of the Veteran's Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act, P. L. No. 98-542, § 5, 98 Stat. 2725, 2727-29 (1984), and the Agent Orange Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-4, § 2, 105 Stat. 11 (1991), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that a claimant is not precluded from establishing service connection with proof of direct causation.' Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). As evidence, make sure the following is submitted remembering that Agent Orange use was terminated November 26, 1971, therefore use 'herbicides' as defined in M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section C, paragraph 10n. This can be found at: http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/admin21/m21%5F1/mr/part4/su...ch02/ch02%5Fsecc.doc and at 38 CFR 3.307(a)(6)(i), Also, AKCSJAKE seems to imply that there is much evidence (from Navy deck logs, etc.) that may document actual evidence of direct spraying. So routine dismissal of a BWN case is not so easy, especially if there is some evidence of spraying while on board.
  10. Tex, The info I have begins circa late 1969 and after. I won't say it doesn't create doubt, but it doesn't prove it was used before that period. All the info can be found at http://tmai18.spaces.live.com in the folders or at http://veteransinfo.org in Steve's AO in Thailand files. Kurt
  11. Jim MAC, As a federal finance officer, I believe they are required to pay you interest if they don't pay within 30 days, same as all federal agencies.
  12. To add to your post Berta, they have also stayed all claims, or at least my claim, for service connection claiming in transit to another location, without proof other than statements by the claimant. I have filed a claim for service connection based on exposure to herbicides while in transit to and from Thailand on two occasions with supplemental evidence which had previously been awarded, and to exposure to herbicides while in Thailand at U-Tapao and Korat, based on de-classified documents concerning herbicide use at both locations. If anyone is interested or needs these documents, you may download the documents freely from my site at http://tmai18.spaces.live.com. It seems clear from the ongoing events, that the VA will attempt to hold these claims, and try to change the original act to "boots on the ground". I am making every effort to ask the Committees on Veterans Affairs to change the "DOD List" to include those places the evidence clearly demonstrates herbicides were used.
  13. Berta's information is extremely pertinent. In most states, the BAR says that to not respond to requests from clients is considered unethical behavior. I would also do with JRs emails or certified letters. You might also see if you can find online reference to DC ethical behavior and reference that as well.
  14. Berta, As usual you've picked out the important stuff, unfortunately the link doesn't work. Any suggestions? Kurt
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use