Read Disability Claims Articles
View All Forums | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Search | Rules
vietnam_war_vet
-
Posts
15 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
VA Disability and Benefits Information
VA Benefits News
Store
Posts posted by vietnam_war_vet
-
-
Randall, gracias for posting this.
Now, should I dare allow my hopes to be raised again. I was an USAF radio op, served at Nankom Phanom (NKP) Air Base, did Ho Chi Minh trail interdiction missions inside of Laos, developed chloracne while I was still over there....diagnosed with DMII in the mid-90s (I'm insulin-dependent now)....went through the AO Registry exam in 1990 at the Boise VAMC and was officially placed on the DVA's AO Registry in August 1990....BUT every claim that I've submitted for chloracne and DMII has been denied.....the first denial (1985) and the most recent one (2004-05), the DVA said basically the same thing....NKP and Laos didn't count....no "boots-on-ground" within the borders of Vietnam means no AO SC claims....my VSM, RVCR be damned.
I and so many others would really love to see this injustice negated. -- Michael
The 110 Th Congress will be in session in January 2007.....This is the time to push for full concurrent pay, try to straighten VA out and get the Agent Orange cases awarded...not just for the Blue Water Navy but for all that served in Vietnam. Thailand, Cambodia and Laos..... Write your Senators and Represntatives!!!!!!Here is one of the letters I wrote to my Senator: Feel Free to use it as a guide.....Nobody but you is going to help.....Do it today....raise HELL.
December 7. 2006
Honorable Senator Mitch McConnell
601 West Broadway
Suite 630
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Re: Your Ltr. Dtd. 5 Dec 2006
Senator McConnell :
The United States Court for Veterans Claims in a decision dated August 16, 2006 “ Haas vs. Nicholson “ruled that the appellant on appeal from the Veterans Board of Appeals was entitled to a presumption of exposure to the herbicide specifically identified as Agent Orange. It further found that any veteran serving during the Vietnam Era (1962-1975) and who had been awarded the VSM “Vietnam Service Medal” was presumed to have been exposed to the herbicide commonly know as Agent Orange.
The desire of my fellow Vietnam Veterans who served during the Vietnam Era in Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia as well as their territorial waters who have one of the eleven diseases set forth in 38 C.F.R. 3-309(e). be presumed to have been exposed to agent orange and awarded 100% Veterans Administration Compensation.
I propose the decision of The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims “Haas Vs. Nicholson” be a guide to re-write those portions of U.S.C. 38; 38 C.F.R.; and the Veterans Administration Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1 by means of new legislation promulgated by the United States Congress.
I have attached the U.S. Court Of Appeals for Veterans Claims decision Haas Vs. Nichoson; National Veterans Legal Services Program additional information on exposure to agent orange.
Randall D. Thomas Sr
-
Sorry, the first time I hit submit, I got one of those "this page cannot be displayed" screens. So, I hit back and then hit submit a second time. Oopsie....Michael
-
Muchas gracias for sharing this, Time. Is anyone on hadit.com truly surprised by the contents of this transcript? Not if they're firmly grounded in reality and not blinded by delusional, corrupted, self-serving partisan politics. Just my humble opinion.
I cringe ever time I see a news segment or read a news article where our national politicans routinely wrap themselves in our flag and proclaim how they "support our troops and veterans"....and then a review of their voting records disproves those claims - showing how they have either sponsored or condoned status quo or cutbacks to the VA's budget.
A million backlogged claims at the VA expected by next year....Cafferty and his colleagues are so right....what a national disgrace!! -- Michael
Here is the portion on VA funding. The link will bring up the entire transcript.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/061.../cnnitm.01.html
CAFFERTY: Another triumph of, what is it -- form over substance. Gee, why am I surprised?
President Bush wound up his trip to Iraq this week by brushing off calls for a U.S. pullout. This, as the administration gets ready to ask Congress for a big check to fund the war. The cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan also includes helping veterans once they come back to the United States. And according to a new study when you factor in those costs the price tag of the war goes through the ceiling. Linda Bilmes is a co-author of that study, and a former assistant secretary of commerce. She's now a lecturer of public finance at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
Linda, it's nice to have you with us. Welcome.
LINDA BILMES, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Thank you, Jack.
CAFFERTY: Can we get a number on this? Is it possible to get your arms around the dollars involved and help -- we've got a million kids go to war in Iraq as we've rotated troops in and out of there, how much is it costing the taxpayers? The part of the bill we don't hear about.
BILMES: That's right, Jack. Even if we pulled out tomorrow the budgetary cost, the cost to the taxpayers is well over a trillion dollars.
CAFFERTY: A trillion?
BILMES: That's right. And the reason is that even after we pull out, we still have to pay $125 billion to take care of veterans and we have to replace all of the military equipment that's being used up.
ELAM: Linda, I was curious, because originally the Bush administration was saying we were looking at $60 billion for this. And obviously when you factor in all of the taking care of vets, also you need the weapons, do you think the Bush administration really knew it was going to be more than that and they were downplaying the numbers or do you think they really just got sidelined here?
BILMES: Well, I think it's interesting that everyone in the administration said that this was going to cost $60 billion and the only person who deferred from that was Larry Lindsey, the economic adviser. He said it might cost over $100 billion and he was actually fired for saying that.
WESTHOVEN: Linda, I think you said $125 billion is the tab for the health care for vets, is that right?
BILMES: That's right. That's right.
WESTHOVEN: Why is there -- I mean, that's huge, right? Compared to what they were talking about early in the day. Why were so they so far off the mark just in terms of the health care bill? I mean, this is something that we know every time we go to war, we're going to have to take care of our veterans?
BILMES: Well, I think what's happened here is that the number of veterans who are coming home and who are claiming medical care and disability benefits is much, much higher than we anticipated. And we've already had over 200,000 veterans who've come home from Iraq and sought medical care from the V.A. We've had another 150,000 who have come back and sought counseling services from the V.A. and we expect that at least 50 percent of those who have served will claim for disability benefits at a minimum because that's how many claimed in the first Gulf War.
CAFFERTY: Can you compare the war in Iraq with the other military conflicts we've been involved? And I'm thinking in terms of, for example, in Vietnam, we lost 58,000 soldiers. We've lost almost 3,000 in Iraq. And yet the number of wounded soldiers, as a percentage of the overall force, the people who come back with devastating injuries seems to be much higher than perhaps it was in some of the earlier conflicts.
BILMES: Well, that's right, Jack. In the -- in the Vietnam War, there were three soldiers wounded for every one killed. In Iraq, there are eight soldiers wounded who come back seriously wounded for every one killed. Now, obviously the improvements in body armor are a good thing, but it does mean that there is a large cost to taking care of our wounded veterans and this is what we had not anticipated and what the Veterans' Administration has been overwhelmed with.
ELAM: It seems to be that I'm focusing more on the economy when I look at this, but it seems to me that all of this money that has been transported out could have been used somewhere else here in the United States. Where else do you think this money could have been more usefully played?
BILMES: Well, I mean, a lot of the money that has been used here has ended up in the hands of, for example, a Nepali contractors that doesn't have much use in the United States. But I think the bigger question is, where has the money gone? If you look at the Defense Department's own audit reports and its own inspector general reports, they say, not my words, that there are tens of billions of dollars that are simply missing. They have a financial statement that has never received a clean opinion and they are very concerned internally about the fact they actually don't know where all of the money has gone.
WESTHOVEN: That is one of the driving reasons that you think you to come out with the kind of research that says, you know, good or bad we're trying to take a look at the estimate for the total cost of the war in Iraq because it seems like you can get those kinds of numbers straight from the federal government?
BILMES: That is one of the reasons. I think the other reason that is every time one of our congressmen votes to add more money for the war, they're making an implicit cost-benefit analysis. They're saying the benefit we're getting is worth the cost. So, we need to have an accurate look at what the cost actually is.
CAFFERTY: How do you reconcile the kinds of numbers you're throwing around? Tens of billions of dollars that have simply fallen through cracks? And yet I get e-mails on THE SITUATION ROOM, here on CNN in the afternoon, from military families that are on of food stamps. We have a long history in this country of not taking care of the veterans once the fighting is over. What does that say about our national mind-set and what can we possibly do to begin to address the welfare of these wives and children of the soldiers who are fighting and dying over there and who have to live at poverty level or in some cases even below, in this country?
BILMES: Jack, I could not agree with you more. This is a national disgrace. It's a national scandal. We are sending 18, 19- year-old kids over to Iraq and when they come back we're not processing their claims. The number of backlogged claims, that is soldiers who have fought, who have come back, who have claimed, they're backlogged at Veterans Administration now, has risen from 400,000 to 600,000 and we expect it to reach a million claims by next year. It's absolutely outrageous that these kids then come home and face this paperwork trial.
CAFFERTY: And yet the checks are cut Halliburton on time, I assume.
BILMES: I'm sure they are.
CAFFERTY: Yeah. Linda, you're right, it's a national disgrace. I couldn't agree more. Thank you for putting a little light on it here IN THE MONEY today, I appreciate it.
BILMES: Thank you very much, Jack.
CAFFERTY: Linda Bilmes, lecturer of public finance, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What an awsome point. While Veterans fight for bennifits for years, Halliburton doesn't seem to have the same problem.
Time
-
Enmark
Are you still employed? If you are employed it will be hard to get 100% for PTSD. Have you taken the AO Registry exam? This may indicate some agent orange disabilities like diabetes. Many of us RVN vets will develope DMII and it is service connected by presumption.
John, I know that DMII is supposed to be service-connected by presumption (law), but are you familiar with my case? I did the VA's AO Registry exam at the Boise VAMC in early 1990. In August 1990, I received my official notification from the VA that I had been placed on their AO Registry, but in the same notification, they denied my chloracne claim. I have chloracne scarring virtually bodywide and it first started/manifested during my second tour of duty in 1972-73.
BTW, I'm still listed on the VA's AO Registry.
For that chloracne claim, I had a very supportive state DAV Service Officer (who was a good friend and also a member of the VVA chapter that I was commander of at the time). I also had a combat Vietnam Vet congressman, Larry LaRocco, who also proactively shepherded my chloracne claim. It didn't matter....VA denied it.
In 1994, I was diagnosed with DMII (I'm now insulin-dependent). In 1996 via a VVA SO, I submitted another chloracne claim and the VA denied it.
In 2004 via a different state DAV SO, I filed a claim for DMII. The VA denied it. I asked the DAV to assist me with an appeal, but was refused. I contacted DAV National and asked for their intervention to persuade the state DAV to assist in my appeal. This resulted in my receiving a letter from a high-ranking national official stating that the DAV wouldn't assist me in my appeal or anything else. Yes, I'm a lifetime DAV member.
I then contacted Senator Jeff Bingamen's office (he's my senator and is on the committee that controls the budget for the VA) and asked for assistance on my DMII claim denial by the VA. The Senator's staff did their damnest, but got nowhere with the VA.
For my the DMII denial, the VA cited my having served at Nankom Phanom (NKP) Air Base in NE Thailand and having done interdiction missions along the Ho Chi Minh trail across the Mekong in Laos as the primary reason for my being denied. The VA stated that I didn't meet the "boots-on-ground" in-country Vietnam criteria, plus that I couldn't prove (and I can't) that I did interdiction missions into Laos, plus that no proof existed concerning the AO defoliation around NKP Air Base (I watched the spraying around the base's perimenter while I was there). In addition, we heavily AO'd all along the Ho Chi Minh trail. None of it mattered....denied.
As far as I'm concerned, the final insult was the DAV national official virtually agreeing with the VA's reasons for the denial of my DMII claim and stating that the DAV would not allow their resources to be further utilized for what was a waste of time....that my appeal had no chance.
I guess my point for this rambling rant is that at least in my case, that AO DMII is not always service-connected by presumption. The VA can be very adept at finding loopholes for denial. In my case, the VA ignored the fact that they had placed me on their AO Registry - along with ignoring my VSM and RVCR on my DD214. -- Michael
-
Amen, Berta! Excellent, accurate synopsis of the ongoing incompetence and malfeasance of the DVA/CAVC/VAROs, etc....and all with American tax dollars - plus costing veterans physically, emotionally, and psychologically. It's been this way for what seems like forever and I don't see any credible improvement/positive changes on the horizon. Instead with the current political dysfunctional morass in our country, I only see it getting even worse for us veterans and our families. -- Michael
(This is only a few positiona and their salaries-Also-if anyone is interested the 2006 VA Budget is found at :
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/appendix.html
Just click on the Department of Veterans Affairs.
These federal employees are paid good money to do a job properly.
I feel that the VARos- since they have the same legal and medical criteria as BVA and CAVC -should be pressured into doing their jobs right for you all.
The reason for the backlog is due in part -in my opinion- to the fact that they continually have to re-do decisions which could have been properly prepared in the first place.
I know Terry disagrees-and that is OK-
But when you consider these VARO salaries and then add what BVA and CAVC employees get paid-
a valid claim for compensation can be as costly to the federal goverment as it can be to the vet-as the vet waits year after year incurring higher taxes and interest on loans they need to get etc- and when they do finally receive an award it is usually based on money that does not have the same value when they get it-
as it did when they first filed the claim.
Like I always say- it the VA was a business- they would be bankrupt by now.
Show Jobs Opening:
Last 24 hoursLast 3 daysLast 7 daysLast 14 daysLast 30 daysLast 60 daysAll Jobs Refine Search With Additional Keywords:
Save this search and email me jobs!
Jobs 1 to 3 of 3 Page: [1]
Closing Job Summary Agency Location Salary
12/28/2005 Supervisory Veterans Service Representative (Assistant Veterans Service Center Manager)
The Assistant Veterans Service Center Manager shares responsibility with the Veterans Service Center Manager for directing and supervising the administration of work involving the development, ...[more]
Vacancy Ann.#: 06-C395-VBA-06
Who May Apply: Agency Employees Only
Pay Plan: GS-0996-14/14
Appointment Term: Permanent
Job Status: Full-Time
Opening Date: 12/8/2005
Salary: From 88,772.00 to 115,407.00 USD per year
Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration US-CA-Sacramento County 88,772.00+
12/30/2005 Veterans Service Center Manager
This announcement is open to VA Career Transition Assistance Program eligibles only. ...[more]
Vacancy Ann.#: 06-C392-VBA-06
Who May Apply: Agency Employees Only
Pay Plan: GS-0996-15/15
Appointment Term: Permanent
Opening Date: 12/15/2005
Salary: From 108,437.00 to 140,300.00 USD per year
Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration US-NY-New York City 108,437.00+
1/3/2006 Rating Veterans Service Representative
This position is open to current employees of the Veterans Benefits Administration. Please read carefully the full text announcement for complete deatils. All applications materials must be received ...[more]
Vacancy Ann.#: 2005-254-AMC
Who May Apply: Agency Employees Only
Pay Plan: GS-0996-12/13
Appointment Term: Permanent
Opening Date: 12/12/2005
Salary: From 62,886.00 to 97,213.00 USD per year
Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration US-DC-Washington 62,886.00+
Jobs 1 to 3 of 3 Page: [1]
If you would like to post a resume on USAJOBS to apply online, or would like to edit your posted resume, our simple Resume Builder will help in a few short steps.
This is a United States Office of Personnel Management website. USAJOBS is the Federal Government's official one-stop source for Federal jobs and employment information.
Home | Search Jobs | My USAJOBS | Forms
FAQS | Privacy Policy | Help | Site Map
Employer Services | Contact Us | Privacy Act and Public Burden Information
-
V.A. Wins I helped a VN Vet that I knew to get 50%,last year. I noded it as he should have gotten 100%,from the word go.
I called the VA in Lafayette,made an appointment with the shrink,TOLD him that this Vet was going to Kill himself,an Vet went see him. The Vet told me afterwards that the shrink more or less brushed him off.
This after this vet had been committed in Alex.,La. years ago,an was told that if he was ever back in their ward, HE would NEVER GET OUT. That is why he was not willing to trust the VA again
SO 2 WEEK AGO < HE TOOK HIS OWN LIFE > Drove 8 miles,bought a gun,went home ,called his family,told them what he was going to do,went outside an shot himseld. DIED right there.
He was 56 years old,so lets see! The V.A. will save 1/2 million dollars? B)
Yep, MyMissie - the DVA's beancounting shuffle...."deny, delay, deny, delay as more and more shuffled veterans die each day." That pathetic burial benefit is all the DVA will have to shell out for your VN Vet. That's their goal and has been and will remain to be the DVA's goal. I don't see it changing....not in my lifetime. -- Michael
-
Michael:
You've gotten good advice regarding your claim from the DVA, DAV and the folks here on Hadit. The bottom line is you simply cannot win at a presumptive AO claim. This isn't working and you need to change your tactics if you want to succeed. It's just that simple.
***Not trying to be rhetorical, but when the precedents are already in to DVA's system (such as the BVA case that Berta shared of a Nakhon Phanom Air Base veteran being awarded his AO claim for being exposed to AO solely at NKP...along with another BVA case of another veteran who served at Thailand's Ubon Air Base - just downriver from NKP - also being awarded AO claim by the BVA), why doesn't those precedents automatically apply to other veterans - like myself - who also did their Vietnam War tours at NKP, Ubon, and other Thailand, Laotian, and Cambodian locations? Why do we have to keep being denied, delayed, and repeatedly made to jump through hoops for years for what is already legally applicable (per the BVA decisions) to us?
As I had stated, my question wasn't rhetorical. Deny and delay as more and more of our fellow Vietnam War veterans die each day....that is and has long been the DVA's true agenda. Why should the DVA have to pay monthly compensation to veterans when by denying and delaying, the DVA will instead only have to pay a pitifully small burial benefit.
The DAV isn't required to represent you, no service organization is. At this point it appears they feel they've done all they can. You tell us they've informed you of what you can't do but I don't see where you mention being informed of what you can do. That doesn't surprise me though as I don't see you've been any too receptive to the suggestions made here.
***That's your opinion/assessment of me based on a few comments posted on this cyber forum?? You couldn't be more wrong....
Not all SO's are cut from the same cloth, some go the extra mile, some don't. At this point it's up to you to pursue your own claim. Learn the statutes and regulations and submit everything yourself. Keep copies of everything, then you'll be assured everything you wanted to submit gets there. There is no requirement to have a SO. You'll need to rescind the POA you signed for the DAV before you can represent yourself.
You'll need to discover evidence of AO usage where you served and need to show you were exposed there. Work with the TVVETS folks, this is what they do. The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in finding evidence to support his claim but they just send letters out to official sources asking for info. If they are ignored or told no info exists, they stop. They don't have to persist till hell freezes over. That's your job.
***As I stated above concerning those precedent BVA decisions on AO claims for Thailand/Vietnam War veterans....no, my job is to submit my AO claim to the DVA (which I have now 4 times). The DVA has access to my military records that prove I served in the same theater/locale as those veterans who received those AO claims via those BVA cases...so the DVA's job...along with the DAV SO....is to say, "here's another NKP AO veteran" and facilitate/expedite the award for the compensation/claim. Are you condoning the DVA's deny and delay policies?? It appears so, but I don't have your talent for cyber clairvoyance. Bottom line: in the real world, I don't know you....and you don't know me.
At some point they will decide no more info exists and adjudicate your claim on what they have, usually to your detriment.
Now, as far as your chloracne goes, the VA C&P service has determined you have folliculitus and not chloracne.
***BTW, I never had any skin problems/disorders prior to my NKP tour. No childhood/teenage acne, nada. The skin outbreaks manifested while I was still at NKP, but I attributed it to a combination of too much C-Rats (I literally lived on C-Rats there) and relentless heat & humidity. After I returned to the states, the skin outbreaks continued. Again, I just thought it was from my diet (too much junk/fast food), etc....and simply put up with it. The skin eruptions/outbreaks have continued basically unabated to this day. I have scarring virtually body-wide.
That is a valid medical opinion and it isn't likely to change. If you disagree with their findings, complaining about it isn't going to make a difference. You have no medical standing and your medical opinion is worthless in the eyes of the decision maker. Your option here is to accept their diagnosis or hire your own doctor to render an independent medical opinion (IMO). You will have to have your service medical records available for his review and he will have to include a statement to the effect of he has reviewed your records, examined you and found you have chloracne and more likely than not, it is due to exposure in Thailand.
***Via the recommendation of a VVA SO in 1996, I tried exactly this (the IMO) at the University Hospital in Albuquerque. After skin samples/biopsies were taken from me, those tissues were sent to the Albuquerque VAMC's dermatology department for analysis. I didn't know in advance that the University Hospital and the VAMC had such an working arrangement/relationship when it came AO diagnosis, but they did. Not to my surprise, the VAMC dermatology department ruled folliculitis again and non-AO related.
Personally, I'd question the veracity of any physician willing to do that for several reasons. Firstly because every man, woman and child in the U.S. will test positive for dioxin exposure. It's all around us in the food we eat and the milk we drink. You've sprayed it on your yard and garden for the past 40 years and then rolled around in it playing with your dog and kids. Secondly, because my reading on chloracne indicates it manifests itself within 1 year of exposure (usually a couple of weeks) and self resolves within 2 years. The likelihood that your chloracne persisted for more than 35 years is very slim.
***Um, as I stated above....my skin eruptions/outbreaks have continued basically unabated since they first started while I was still at NKP. In my opinion, it is possible that your reading sources on chloracne may be suspect/biased.
In the end, you are going to need to get very proactive with your claim. If you need advice on specifics, this is a good place to it.
***I have gotten some good advice and specific references/sources from participants on this forum, especially Berta. Also in my opinion, the DVA and some of the organizational SOs need to get proactive and just do their damned job with veterans. They're not, therefore they have transferred the onus onto veterans like myself. This is nothing more than agency-wide denial of the DVA's shirking of responsibility, all the while deflecting the responsibility completely onto the veterans for the DVA's malfeasance/imcompetence.
-
Michael:
You've gotten good advice regarding your claim from the DVA, DAV and the folks here on Hadit. The bottom line is you simply cannot win at a presumptive AO claim. This isn't working and you need to change your tactics if you want to succeed. It's just that simple.
***Not trying to be rhetorical, but when the precedents are already in to DVA's system (such as the BVA case that Berta shared of a Nakhon Phanom Air Base veteran being awarded his AO claim for being exposed to AO solely at NKP...along with another BVA case of another veteran who served at Thailand's Ubon Air Base - just downriver from NKP - also being awarded AO claim by the BVA), why doesn't those precedents automatically apply to other veterans - like myself - who also did their Vietnam War tours at NKP, Ubon, and other Thailand, Laotian, and Cambodian locations? Why do we have to keep being denied, delayed, and repeatedly made to jump through hoops for years for what is already legally applicable (per the BVA decisions) to us?
As I had stated, my question wasn't rhetorical. Deny and delay as more and more of our fellow Vietnam War veterans die each day....that is and has long been the DVA's true agenda. Why should the DVA have to pay monthly compensation to veterans when by denying and delaying, the DVA will instead only have to pay a pitifully small burial benefit.
The DAV isn't required to represent you, no service organization is. At this point it appears they feel they've done all they can. You tell us they've informed you of what you can't do but I don't see where you mention being informed of what you can do. That doesn't surprise me though as I don't see you've been any too receptive to the suggestions made here.
***That's your opinion/assessment of me based on a few comments posted on this cyber forum?? You couldn't be more wrong....
Not all SO's are cut from the same cloth, some go the extra mile, some don't. At this point it's up to you to pursue your own claim. Learn the statutes and regulations and submit everything yourself. Keep copies of everything, then you'll be assured everything you wanted to submit gets there. There is no requirement to have a SO. You'll need to rescind the POA you signed for the DAV before you can represent yourself.
You'll need to discover evidence of AO usage where you served and need to show you were exposed there. Work with the TVVETS folks, this is what they do. The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in finding evidence to support his claim but they just send letters out to official sources asking for info. If they are ignored or told no info exists, they stop. They don't have to persist till hell freezes over. That's your job.
***As I stated above concerning those precedent BVA decisions on AO claims for Thailand/Vietnam War veterans....no, my job is to submit my AO claim to the DVA (which I have now 4 times). The DVA has access to my military records that prove I served in the same theater/locale as those veterans who received those AO claims via those BVA cases...so the DVA's job...along with the DAV SO....is to say, "here's another NKP AO veteran" and facilitate/expedite the award for the compensation/claim. Are you condoning the DVA's deny and delay policies?? It appears so, but I don't have your talent for cyber clairvoyance. Bottom line: in the real world, I don't know you....and you don't know me.
At some point they will decide no more info exists and adjudicate your claim on what they have, usually to your detriment.
Now, as far as your chloracne goes, the VA C&P service has determined you have folliculitus and not chloracne.
***BTW, I never had any skin problems/disorders prior to my NKP tour. No childhood/teenage acne, nada. The skin outbreaks manifested while I was still at NKP, but I attributed it to a combination of too much C-Rats (I literally lived on C-Rats there) and relentless heat & humidity. After I returned to the states, the skin outbreaks continued. Again, I just thought it was from my diet (too much junk/fast food), etc....and simply put up with it. The skin eruptions/outbreaks have continued basically unabated to this day. I have scarring virtually body-wide.
That is a valid medical opinion and it isn't likely to change. If you disagree with their findings, complaining about it isn't going to make a difference. You have no medical standing and your medical opinion is worthless in the eyes of the decision maker. Your option here is to accept their diagnosis or hire your own doctor to render an independent medical opinion (IMO). You will have to have your service medical records available for his review and he will have to include a statement to the effect of he has reviewed your records, examined you and found you have chloracne and more likely than not, it is due to exposure in Thailand.
***Via the recommendation of a VVA SO in 1996, I tried exactly this (the IMO) at the University Hospital in Albuquerque. After skin samples/biopsies were taken from me, those tissues were sent to the Albuquerque VAMC's dermatology department for analysis. I didn't know in advance that the University Hospital and the VAMC had such an working arrangement/relationship when it came AO diagnosis, but they did. Not to my surprise, the VAMC dermatology department ruled folliculitis again and non-AO related.
Personally, I'd question the veracity of any physician willing to do that for several reasons. Firstly because every man, woman and child in the U.S. will test positive for dioxin exposure. It's all around us in the food we eat and the milk we drink. You've sprayed it on your yard and garden for the past 40 years and then rolled around in it playing with your dog and kids. Secondly, because my reading on chloracne indicates it manifests itself within 1 year of exposure (usually a couple of weeks) and self resolves within 2 years. The likelihood that your chloracne persisted for more than 35 years is very slim.
***Um, as I stated above....my skin eruptions/outbreaks have continued basically unabated since they first started while I was still at NKP. In my opinion, it is possible that your reading sources on chloracne may be suspect/biased.
In the end, you are going to need to get very proactive with your claim. If you need advice on specifics, this is a good place to it.
***I have gotten some good advice and specific references/sources from participants on this forum, especially Berta. Also in my opinion, the DVA and some of the organizational SOs need to get proactive and just do their damned job with veterans. They're not, therefore they have transferred the onus onto veterans like myself. This is nothing more than agency-wide denial of the DVA's shirking of responsibility, all the while deflecting the responsibility completely onto the veterans for the DVA's malfeasance/imcompetence.
-
In those cases I posted - clearly the veterans had done a lot of leg work-
the Thailand vet's documentation was quite detailed.
Something you said in your post has bothered me-
In 1990 the VA was not doing tests on veterans for dioxin-
by 1997 - The Environmental Agency Services in conjunction with the VA Central Office determined no dioxin tests would be performed by VA :
"No special Agent Orange tests are offered since there is no test to show if a veteran's medical problem was caused by Agent Orange or other herbicides used in Vietnam. There are tests that show the level of dioxin in human fat and blood, but such tests are not done by VA because there is serious question about their value to veterans. In January 1992, VA signed a contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) under which, among other things, the NAS considered the feasibility and possible value of dioxin level blood tests for Vietnam veterans who apply for VA medical care or VA disability compensation. In its July 1993 report, the NAS concluded that individual TCDD levels in Vietnam veterans are usually not meaningful because of common background exposures to TCDD, poorly understood variations among individuals in TCDD metabolism, relatively large measurement errors, and exposure to herbicides that did not contain TCDD."
**Berta....no BS. Not only did the Boise VAMC doctors take blood, skin, and fat tissue samples from me in 1990....when I tried again to file the AO chloracne claim in 1995, the Albuquerque VAMC's Chief of Dermatology (a Dr. Paul Dunn....I'll never forget his name) took skin tissue and biopsy samples of my chloracne scars/sores. Two weeks later he informed me that all I had was "folliculitis" which had nothing to do with AO/dioxin exposure. When I asked for a copy the lab results, he had a snit for my having the "audacity" to question his medical expertise and veracity. I never did get to see those lab results. I just gave up and walked away....again. Gracias....Michael
-
It answered the questions I had but raised additional questions. From the VA response under "Reasons and Bases" it appears they believed you were making a presumptive claim under AO exposure for service in Vietnam. If that's an accurate assumption of your claim, you can expect to be unsuccessful. I don't know of nor have I heard of any veteran making such a claim be successful. I note the decision maker's comment: "In the Republic of Vietnam means that you must have been in-country on land," to be inaccurate. I guess that represents his understanding of OGC 27-97 but nowhere does it state anything about in-country or on land. I think he is wrong in that respect since OGC 27-97 uses various phrases such as "within the borders of the Republic of Vietnam" or "in the Republic of Vietnam" or "within the boundaries of the Republic" but doesn't require one to be on land.
**TinCanMan: Two things that relate to OGC 27-97. First, both the initial 11/05 denial notification from the DVA and then the DVA's subsequent reply to my written disagreement of the denial decision specifically referred to OGC 27-97 when explaining why my having never been within the borders of Vietnam was the key/legal component for my AO DMII claim denial.
Secondly, after I had carefully reviewed the contents of the 11/05 DVA notice of denial, I submitted my written disagreement to both the DVA and to the National Office of DAV. Virtually all the documents that I had provided to the state DAV SO were not amongst the items (documents/records) listed by the DVA as having been part of the review for my denial decision. Without going into lengthy details, I'll just say that during our meeting - the state DAV SO did his best to discourage me from filing the claim (specifically - paraphrasing: "since the DVA has denied the AO handlers from Korat Air Base, I didn't have a chance....that I would be wasting his time, my time, and the DVA's time by filing my AO claim.) The DAV SO also told me about the DVA's relatively new "boots-on-the-ground" Vietnam in-country requirement for AO claims and my Thailand/Laos service simply meant I would be denied. At the end of our meeting, the DAV SO reluctantly took copies my documents/records.
After I had received the DVA's 11/05 denial, the state DAV SO wouldn't return my numerous call back messages. Finally, his secretary told me bluntly that my denial was exactly as he (the SO) had told me during our only meeting and that any appeal would just be a further waste of the DAV's and DVA's time and resources.
So, my written disagreement to the DVA included a complaint about the "quality" of the state DAV SO's representation, thus my reason for sending a copy to the National DAV Office.
I then received a 3/2/05 letter from Edward R. Reese, Jr. - the National Service Director at the Disabled American Veterans National Service and Legislative Headquarters.
In that letter, DAV's Reese cites and includes passages from Title 38 of the CFR:
38 CFR 3.307(a)(6)(iii)
38 CFR 3.313
Plus two related VA Office of General Counsel (OGC) issued precedent opinions that further clarify the above two 38 CFR citations/passages:
VAOPGCPREC 7-93
VAOPGCPREC 27-97
All of these citations center around the qualifying criteria for being exposed to Agent Orange requiring having served/been physically present within the boundaries of Vietnam....and therefore - having served and been exposed to Agent Orange any where else within the Vietnam War's theater of operations -- such as in Laos, Cambodia, Thailand -- disqualifies any such service personnel from legally meeting the Agent Orange exposure qualifying criteria.
Two pertinent direct quotes from Reese's 3/2/05 DAV letter:
"Title 38 CFR 3.307 and 3.313, VAOPGCPREC 27-97 and VAOPGCPREC 7-93 all have a single common theme in addressing what entails service in Vietnam which ultimately triggers a presumption of Agent Orange exposure, i.e., requirement that a veteran actually have been present within the boundaries of Vietnam. Given your acknowledgment that you did not visit within the boundaries of Vietnam during the Vietnam era while you were stationed in Laos and Thailand, a presumption of Agent Orange exposure cannot legally be provided to you. Likewise, the presumption of service connection for disabilities associated with Agent Orange exposure cannot legally be provided to you."
"Mr. Lambright, DAV's Statement of Policy for Representation reads: "If the VA decides against you, we will, at your request, advise you about the appellate process and, based on the controlling laws and regulations, the probable outcome of your particular case." As controlling law and regulation specifically rule out the presumption of Agent Orange exposure and service connection that you seek, there is no legal basis to grant your claim and therefore DAV cannot put forth a legal and meritorious argument on your behalf."
So, TinCanMan, not only did the DAV concur with the DVA that my not having "been present within the boundaries of Vietnam" was legal grounds for my AO DMII claim being denied outright, but the DAV further added that they would no longer represent me if I decided to appeal ("there is no legal basis to grant your claim and therefore DAV cannot put forth a legal and meritorious agrument on your behalf").
I'm a lifetime member of DAV. That organization will never again merit any of my time or money. -- Michael
-
No, actually it's not true. None of it. There is no such thing as a requirement for "boots-on-the-ground" in Vietnam to be eligible for consideration under AO presumption. It isn't written anywhere in statute, regulation or OGC Precedent Opinion. The defining document is VAOPGCPREC 27-97
This is an opinion by the VA's Office of General Council and it is binding on all VA employee's. The OGC is the Veteran's Administration's in house lawyers. In the 90's there was a lot of confusion as to the definition of "in the Republic of Vietnam" which is the delimiting phrase used in US Code governing AO Presumption. The Secretary of the DVA asked the OGC to examine the statutes, the Congressional Record and the Federal Register to determine what Congress intended when they wrote the legislation. The result was VAOPGCPREC 27-97. Now, OGC 27-97 isn't law or regulation but it is binding on all VA employee's until such time as a court of law says otherwise or Congress passes additional legislation to modify the statutes.
**TinCupMan: from the DVA's 6/30/05 Notice of Disagreement (in iresponse to my filing that disagreement) and also so stated on the original 11/22/04 DVA decision (denial):
"We determined that the following condition was not related to your military service, so service connection couldn't be granted. Medical Description: Diabetes mellitus, type II associated with herbicide exposure is denied because you did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam Era."
Also: "You contend that although you had service in Thailand and Laos (not confirmed by military personnel records), you were exposed to Agent Orange as a result of aerial spraying at Nakhon Phanom Air Base in Thailand. For informational purposes, the VA presumes that any veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962 and ending on May 7, 1975, was exposed to an herbicide agent during such service. In the Republic of Vietnam means that you must have been in-country on land. Your service records showed overseas service in Thailand only from September 1969 to September 1970. Your service records did not confirm any possible exposure to Agent Orange."
The "interesting" thing about the DVA's comment ("not confirmed by military personnel records") is along with this most recent claim - I had submitted my DD-214 that clearly displays both of my SEA tours -- my first tour (Don Muang Air Base, Thailand 9/69 - 9/70) and my second tour at Nakhon Phanom Air Base from 9/72 - 9/73. I also presented a copy of my AFCM that was awarded to me due to my radio operator and interdiction missions service while I was at Nakhon Phanom Air Base 9/72 - 9/73. I presented a copy of the DVA's 1990 letter notifying me that due to the results of my AO medical exam at the Boise VAMC, I had been added to the DVA's official AO Registry. I'm still on that registry (I confirmed recently) and since then, I have received and still receive mailings of the DVA's "Agent Orange Review.
But neither the 11/04 DVA denial nor the 6/05 Notice of Disagreement mentioned any of those records/documents....and both DVA missives state that I only served one tour (the 9/69 - 9/70 one) in Thailand....despite both of my tours clearly documented on my DD-214, etc..
Also from the 2nd quoted passage above, "In the Republic of Vietnam means that you must have been in-country on land," my state DAV service officer informed me that this was the DVA's way to explain how the the "boots-on-the-ground Vietnam in-country" policy had impacted me/my denial.
I hope that this addresses some of your questions, TinCupMan. I've been dissed by the DVA....yet again. -- Michael
OGC 27-97 was the 27th opinion rendered in 1997, long before Principi became Secretary. Jesse Brown was Secretary from 93-97 when he was replaced by Togo West in 12/97. So you can see it had nothing to do with Anthony J. Principi and for what it's worth, there is no supporting evidence it was a "bean counter" driven change.
I haven't seen the decision on your claim and you haven't told us the wording under "Reasons and Bases" so I can only guess as to what happened. If you have been denied 4 times you need to change something. Resubmitting the same old evidence isn't working. Read what it says under Reasons and Bases and provide the evidence they want.
There are two types of claims:
Direct
Presumptive
A successful direct claim will include 3 elements:
1. A diagnosis of a compensable condition
2. Military service
3. And a connection or nexus between the previous two.
In your case you need to prove Agent Orange was used where you served in Thailand & that you were exposed to it. You also need to show a diagnosis for each condition claimed.
In order to be successful in a presumptive AO claim you must satisfy the first two elements above and prove you served in The Republic of Vietnam. If you can prove that, you will be presumed to have been exposed to AO and that it caused the conditions claimed provided they are one of the eleven accepted conditions.
Unless you can prove service in country, you are left with a direct claim. Service anywhere other than Vietnam or Korea on the DMZ doesn't qualify for AO presumption.
-
Michael- Welcome aboard here and thank you for your service-
Veterans have had success in AO claims without Vietnam "visitation" , as the regs state.
This case is one of them:
http://www.va.gov/vetapp98/files1/9800877.txt
The veteran served on Okinawa-
He had prostrate cancer on the AO list.
**Muchas gracias for this case link and the other one (Thailand related) on your other note. I have checked them both out. Definitely interesting and most likely useful for my case.
He successfully proved to the BVA that he had been exposed to AO on Okinawa and was awarded AO VA comp.
Do you have a copy of the dioxin tests results you mentioned?
**No....just the letter from 1990 DVA letter stating that due to the findings from my Boise VAMC AO screening/diagnostic tests, I had been added to the official DVA AO Registry.
I realised today- pulling up this claim- that Congressman Lane Evans
had written to Rumsfield years ago- as to whether or not AO was there- on Okinawa where Evans had served-with no answer I know of , yet this vet proved it was there.
This isn't going to be easy- but you said you have a dioxin test that shows it was in your system.
In the denials you got has VA acknowledged that and given any
explanation as to how they think it got there?
Do you have all of your SMRs?
If not I suggest you go to :
**SMR = Service Medical Records? If yes, then I don't have them. I'll follow your instructions and do & submit the SF 180.
then click on Military service records- you can fill out the SF 180 on line or print it off-
If you do it on line they will have a bar coded thing for you to print off ,sign, and mail to them to assofiate with your request.
I would ask for- if I were you- all Service medical records, and any service personnel records showing your destinations and arrivals-anything they have-
Your unit might well have a web site where you could possibly find someone who could verify the AO being used there-
**Someone else suggested this and I tried Google for my unit....nothing. Any other suggestions besides a Google search?
This vet- AO from Thailand- almost lost his comp but got it back:
http://www.va.gov/vetapp04/files2/0418252.txt
There are some key issues in the claim that all vets should take note of-
the VA did not come up with any evidence to the contrary as to his actual exposure-
I mean the part about the Hayes :
"It is not disputed that the veteran served in Ubon, Thailand,
and worked on the Hayes Dispenser weapons system on B57
aircraft. It is not disputed that the Hayes Dispenser
weapons system and B57 aircraft were used in the Operation
Ranch Hand defoliation program. It is not disputed that the
defoliation program continued during the time period the
veteran worked on the Hayes Dispenser weapons system. It is
not disputed that the veteran developed a lympho histiocytic
type of malignant lymphoma shortly after his discharge from
active service.
On the other hand, it could not be verified that B-57G
aircraft were used to spray herbicides during 1970 and 1971,
and it could not be confirmed that Ranch Hand aircraft flew
missions out of Ubon, Thailand. "
The VA tried to CUE itself to sever his SC comp but they could not succeed.
There was too much 'more than likely' as to the Hayes aircraft and that they were likely contaminated with AO.
Another point- since you were found with dioxin in your system-
that would certainly support a good IMO-Independent Medical Opinion-
these are costly and it should come from an environmental medical specialist but it could be well worth the money-
**My wife (M.D. in audiology and Ph.D in deaf education) thought this was a good suggestion and encouraged me to do it. I have double insurance (hers through the university and my Medicare) so maybe I can limit the cost some? Worth a try.
I feel you should certainly appeal this decision, and make sure you send the VA copies of anything they dont have- as listed on the evidence page of the decision-
** Again, exactly what my wife has been encouraging me to do. Not excuses, but this past year has been more insane, stressful, and time-demanding than any time previously in my life. In addition to my job and my wife's and my ongoing physical health issues, both of my parents have been and remain in critical health. My Dad has been in-and-out of hospital ICUs 3 times so far this year. My Mom was diagnosed with stage 3 ovarian cancer last February. She had surgery, then radiation, and then 6 chemo treatments. It sadly didn't stop that damned cancer from metastasizing. She's now terminal and on hospice. Two weeks ago, I just returned back to New Mexico from a 3 week visit with them (Dad's in an Ohio continuing care nursing facility and Mom is in central Florida). That was my 3rd trip so far this year.
There has been much pressure on the VA about the Blue Water regs- regs which deny service connection to Navy vets who were-in my mind-certainly exposed to AO in many cases- in Vietnam's offshore waters
and have AO disabilities but did not step on Vietnam soil.
You are not alone in having AO disabilities that the VA does not want to recognise yet you can see from above claims- that persistence and evidence can pay off.
**I don't want to give up, but my plate has been and remains overly full. Reading that appeals decision about that other Nankon Phanom veteran who was finally approved for his AO-related claim....and that other veteran from Ubon Air Base just down river from NKP....how the hell does the DVA get away with dissing my virtually identical claim??? It makes no sense and reeks of illegalities and immoral/unethical treatment. Muchas gracias, Berta. Please also read my reply to TinCup Man for more specifics about my denial. -- Michael
Berta
-
Last spring, I was rejected/denied for the 4th time by the DVA for my AO claim (I have chloracne and DMII diabetes). In 1990, the Boise VAMC took tissue samples from me during an AO screening and their doctors did find dioxin/AO in my fat tissue. I was then placed on the DVA's official Agent Orange registry, but in the same 1990 notification letter...the DVA refused to acknowledge or treat my chloracne -- even though the skin sores/lesions started during my second tour in 1972-73. The Boise VAMC doctors labeled it as a form of folliculitis (<--- spelling?) and not caused by AO exposure.
I served at Nankon Phanom Air Base (NKP) in northeasternmost Thailand (across the Mekong River from Laos). As required on occasion per Task Force Alpha, I went on interdiction missions into Laos along the Ho Chi Minh trail. The HCM trail was frequently/heavily defoliated with AO, plus the perimeter of NKP was AO defoliated. I watched the C-123s spray and knew enlisted personnel on the flightline who loaded the AO onto those planes. At our commander's meetings, we "enlisted" were told it was pesticide that was being sprayed around the base perimeter for mosquito control. How stupid did our officers think we were? After those sprayings, the mosquitoes continued to thrive, while all the plantlife died.
Back to my most recent denial: for this claim attempt - I had the DAV as my representative/service officer. The resulting DVA denial letter informed me that a review of my service records showed that I had not put "boots-on-the-ground" in-country Vietnam, therefore I was not eligible for my AO DMII claim or any other AO-related claim. My state DAV service officer then told me that I could appeal, but I would be wasting my time and everyone elses since I had not been within the borders of Vietnam proper.
I did a Google search plus a search on this forum's search engine and really didn't get any definitive insight on this "boots-on-the-ground" in-country service policy requirement for AO comp claims.
For my NKP/TFA tour, I was awarded the VSM, RVCR, and the AFCM.
On the Yahoo AO "Spring-Into-Action" forum, one of the moderators told me that former DVA Secretary Principi was responsible to this "boots-on-the-ground" in-country Vietnam policy and it was done to eliminate AO-exposed veterans like myself who served in Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand from qualifying for compensation claims....strictly a beancounting measure by Principi to reduce the number of compensated claims/awards. Is this true??
Any insight or feedback would be appreciated. -- Michael
A Bit Of A Scare From My Dmii
in Medication – Prescription Drugs-Health Issues
Posted
While driving home from work last Tuesday afternoon, I noticed that I suddenly had blurred double vision. I also noticed a dull ache, a tightness on the temple side of my left eye.
Once I was home, I looked in the bathroom mirror and checked for potential stroke indicators (facial drooping, uneven smile, etc), but as far as I could discern....nothing except for the blurred double vision.
When my wife arrived home, she got out her otoscope and examined my eyes. Again, nothing out of the ordinary.
Next morning, I awoke still with the blurred double vision and left temple dull ache/tightness, so I called my doctor and went in.
She did a thorough diagnostic exam and then mentioned the "S" word (stroke) -- thinking that I may have had a minor stroke (a TIA). She made appointments for me with a neurologist and an eye doctor for the next morning and told me to go home, do nothing, and definitely not to work (I teach aquatic therapy & exercise classes in a 90 degree pool).
Thursday morning, I went first to the neurologist for his exam. Then, I went to my eye doctor for his exam, and then back to the neurologist for a MRI and a MRA.
By mid-afternoon, the neurologist, after reading my films, agreed with my eye doctor that I had had a minor TIA/occlusion to the 4th cranial nerve that had caused my left eye to no longer track in synch with my right eye on eye movements, causing the blurred double vision.
The bad news: both doctors said that such an event is not unusual with DMII patients, especially if the diabetes has been around for awhile (I was diagnosed in 1994). They both explained that this was just one of the more common side effects of diabetes.
The good news: due to my diligent treatment of my diabetes (I'm very compliant with medication, diet, and exercise), both doctors expect my complete recovery within 1 to 2 months - that the blurred double vision would cease. Both doctors also told me to continue my daily EC aspirin dosage (I've been doing so since 1996).
More good news: the neurologist was pleasantly surprised that my MRI and MRA did not show the "usual" indications in my brain of long-term diabetes (he said that he expected to see small "spots" in my brain due to my having had diabetes since the early-to-mid 1990s). He informed me that my brain had zero such spots.
I have to type with one eye closed. When I drive, I discovered that if I tuck my chin down on my chest and then look out straight ahead over the top of the steering wheel, my blurred double vision is minimized, almost eliminated.
I'll definitely be glad when my healing/recovery is complete. -- Michael