Vet Who Served On Ship During Vietnam War "frustrated" That Va Will Not Pay For His Care.

[allan]

Vet Who Served On Ship During Vietnam War "Frustrated" That VA Will Not Pay For His Care.

The Kingston (NY) Daily Freeman (10/25) noted that Vietnam veteran "Ronald Zaccai of Kerhonskon developed laryngeal cancer and had to have his voice box removed in 2001" Zaccai "suffered from the effects of Agent Orange...butt he can't get the Veterans' Administration to pay for his medical care because" he was not "actually...in Vietnam" during the war. Instead, he "was assigned to the USS Boston, just off the coast of the Southeast Asian nation." Zaccai is "frustrated that he can't get anywhere with the VA," but US Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) "is trying to change that." The lawmaker "plans to introduce legislation to cover some 800,000 sailors and airmen, including Zaccai, who were not on the ground in Vietnam but still suffer from the effects of Agent Orange."

http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?n...le&sid=9136

[Berta]

This vet who served on the USS Boston was awarded AO comp based upon receipt of the VSM on his DD 214.

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp07/files3/0725187.txt

I think the USS Boston was so close to Vietnam they fired salvos into Vietnam.Can this vet determine if the USS Boston dropped anchor in Danang Harbor when he was aboard ship?

The new AO Equity Act 2009 (please ask your Congressmen/women and Senators to support this bill) would rectify the VSM on a DD 214 as meaning the veteran served during the Vietnam War. Period.

AND eligible for AO comp.

The VA decided mysteriously in around 2002 to decide that the VSM did not mean Vietnam service in many cases and therefore denied many claims for AO comp.Still some claims were awarded with receipt of the VSM with no boots on ground.

Obviously this is when the inequity began.

As I mentioned on one of our recent SVR shows- any Blue Water without the VSM on their DD 214 should send a DD 149 to NARA to have them determine if the VSM should be on their DD 214.

When VA decided on a new definition of what the VSM stood for-they failed to ask for public comment and no one had a chance to gripe about this as it was not a regulation but a new provision in the M21-1.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Berta

[john999]

When the VA realized the potential liability of including all those with VSM for presumptive AO that is when they began to oppose the law. If they are spraying AO and the wind is blowing off shore particles could be blown onto ships near the coast. This is the obvious fact the VA fears. They want to draw the line to limit compensation. That is all it is about.

[Chuck75]

To the best of my knowledge, The Boston was in Danang bay/harbor on the opposite side of the harbor from where the ship I was on was tied to a pier. This pier was used to unload cargo vessels. The Boston was firing over the hills on the opposite side of the bay. As you looked towards the Danang USAFB from the bay, the Boston was on the right, and the pier I'm referring to on the left. I believe the Bay/harbor area at Danang is now considered by the BVA? rulings to be within Vietnam for A.O. presumption.

In any event, if the dates are known, the ship's deck log for those dates will give an exact position and if the ship was anchored or underway. We had to get copies of a ship's log to prove that an LSMR was actually in Vietnam during 1969. Seems that the quickie writeup in the NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER was incorrect, and with some effort, we got it corrected.

"Can this vet determine if the USS Boston dropped anchor in Danang Harbor when he was aboard ship?"

This vet who served on the USS Boston was awarded AO comp based upon receipt of the VSM on his DD 214.

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp07/files3/0725187.txt

I think the USS Boston was so close to Vietnam they fired salvos into Vietnam.Can this vet determine if the USS Boston dropped anchor in Danang Harbor when he was aboard ship?

The new AO Equity Act 2009 (please ask your Congressmen/women and Senators to support this bill) would rectify the VSM on a DD 214 as meaning the veteran served during the Vietnam War. Period.

AND eligible for AO comp.

The VA decided mysteriously in around 2002 to decide that the VSM did not mean Vietnam service in many cases and therefore denied many claims for AO comp.Still some claims were awarded with receipt of the VSM with no boots on ground.

Obviously this is when the inequity began.

As I mentioned on one of our recent SVR shows- any Blue Water without the VSM on their DD 214 should send a DD 149 to NARA to have them determine if the VSM should be on their DD 214.

When VA decided on a new definition of what the VSM stood for-they failed to ask for public comment and no one had a chance to gripe about this as it was not a regulation but a new provision in the M21-1.

[Berta]

I agree-with the BVA starting to handle claims that were stuck in the BWN moratorium-I believe they have conceded that the harbor is obviously in Vietnam -for VA claims purposes.

[jrfrog]

The last "official" word, directly from Bradley Mayes, is that ports, harbors, bays or other such areas are NOT considered to be IN VIETNAM for purposes of herbicide exposure. That's why the push for the legislation was/is so critical.