Vietnam Service Verified

[rthomass]

I have a document initiated by the Veterans Administration Medical Center to the Veterans Administation Regional Office. VA form 10-7131. In the remarks section it states (top of form block 6) " Vet claiming agent orange exposure. States he was stationed in Nakhon Phanom Thailand. States they sprayed Agent Orange around the perimeter of the basse, which is located 4 miles from the Ho Chi Mihn Trail".

The VARO replied back to the VAMC " Birls shows VADS verified." (BIRLS and VADS are data bases) "Records also show Veteran has Vietnam Service".

I also have via a Freedom of Information Act request have Birls Veteran Information data screen report showing Vietnam Service "Y" (for yes). This was from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Washington DC.

I have to the best of my knowledge never stepped foot in Vietnam; but I do have a Vietman Campaign Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal. I am one confused Veteran.

Berta...Vike17 any help?

Edited July 30, 2007 by rthomass

[rthomass]

Oneshot thank you for your most useful insight. i have beat this thread to death so I am going to conclude it and hope that I prevail on remand.

Thanks to one and all......Helps to get input.

Randall

[rthomass]

Hey Brother,

This thread can not be beat to death because this is about a serious life threating matter, and not some discussion about a certain issue.

You got AO and you need to be compensated for it!! Your going to need all the help you can, and the advise from many members here to help you pervail.

Don't eventhink twice about adding more to this or asking more questions, because that's what the site is for. Good Luck hunting down your evidence, I sure it's there somewhere, via the regs or tracking something down, so don't give up, you'll get there eventualy!

I did find this, maybe this is what you were refering to eariler on a case and it says this about a veterans claims from the same base you were at:

"Thus, the only significant issue to be resolved is whether he was in fact exposed to dioxins in service. The evidence in this regard may not be independently verifiable or overwhelming, but the aggregate data are entirely consistent therewith. In that regard, the Board finds that the veteran's explanations of his exposure quite credible and historical map evidence verifies that Nakhon Phamon is on the Thailand/Vietnam territorial border. He has provided a comprehensive description of the activities through which he was exposed to concentrated dioxins, while readily acknowledging that he was never stationed within the Vietnam border.

These asserted facts mesh well with those more readily recognizable things for which there is no need for verification. They also make good common sense when placed next to the known problems such as the ongoing rain in the Far East during that portion of the year which made the requirement for non-soluble defoliants a reality in the first place. All are entirely believable and consistent with the other known information.

The service department has verified that the veteran was indeed where he said he was, at a time when military build-up from a support standpoint was considerable, and at a time when warnings were not necessarily given, as he stated, since the hazards were not fully understood. He can scarcely be faulted for the non-verifiability of specific practices on the Thailand border. His assertions in that regard are both reasonable and justifiable and appear both sound and factually accurate, all of which raises a certain premise from which conclusions may be reasonably drawn. It is exactly such situations in which the Court has mandated that the Board make judgments with regard to ultimate and relative credibility, which in this case, the Board finds in the affirmative.

Consequently, based on the above, and giving the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that there is satisfactory evidence that the veteran had active service sufficiently proximate to if not in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era to have sustained Agent Orange exposure and that he is entitled to application of the presumptions relating to such service with respect to exposure to Agent Orange under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

The Board again notes that the veteran has a respiratory cancer, one of the diseases for which presumptive service connection is permitted based on exposure to Agent Orange. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

Thus, having concluded that the veteran was exposed to herbicides while assigned to Nakhon Phamon from 1969 to 1970, not coincidentally concurrent with other entirely reasonable circumstances enumerated by the veteran, the Board finds that a doubt is thus raised which must be resolved in his favor, and in so doing, that service connection must be granted for immunoblastic lymphoma as being the result of Agent Orange exposure under pertinent exceptions to the regulations. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309."

I can't see how they can acknowledge AO in an area to one vet and not another. This stuf just dosen't go away does it?

Quite faamiliar with the case since I refernced it in my argumnt to the Board of Veterans Appeals at my hearing. To be exact the Veteran cited in the decision served at NKP from August 1969 to April 1970. I seved at NKP from August 1969 to August 1970.....This was pointed out to The BVA. Just as well I now have the Appeal back at the VARO with my lawyer and additional ammo. Give up? Hell no!

[rthomass]

Chiefhost00 Please read this post.

[rthomass]

18 August 2007. Vetrans Administration (VARO) finally revealed they have my appeal locally and it was at the Appeals Team Manager. Berta any ideal how much longer this dance will go on ?

Edited August 14, 2007 by rthomass

[Josephine]

I certainly am not Berta, but it sounds to me that your claim is with the Veterans Service Center Manager.

I think that your answer may be with you very shortly.

Good Luck,

Josephine

Edited August 14, 2007 by Josephine

[Berta]

It is hard to say how long anything will be anywhere at the RO-

I am at Buffalo-after a few weeks at the BVA, I got a fast remand due to legal errors and also additional medical evidence-

my 800# log shows-

9-18-06 open appeal action after remand for expeditious treatment-

8-1- 06- BVA receives Motion to Re-open from VARO a past CUE claim I had.

No status on that.

AO death claim and SMC CUE claim:

10-4-06 Appeals coach Buffalo

10-6-06 Regional Counsel

10-11-06 back from RC

10-31-06 appeals team

11-2-06 rating board then from Nov 2006 to present- Rating specialist, appeals specialist, rating board, etc etc----

AO claim well supported by significant medical evidence and 3 IMOs ( never considered at all in past decisions and the CUE is supported solely by established VA case law and regs.

VARO has a problem- once the AO claim is decided -Nehmer retro kicks in-

and that alters the SMC CUE claim.Maybe they are trying to find another medical "expert" -my 2006 IMO totally knocked down the expert opinion they already got-