Blue Water Vessels,crafts Etc

[Berta]

Ray B Davis just sent me this list which could be more detailed than the past list I posted-

I hope every affected Blue Water Navy vet is aware that the VA has conceded AO exposure to any vet who served during the time frame and on any vessel on this list:

BODY,.aolmailheader {font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:Arial;} a.aolmailheader:link {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; font-weight:normal;} a.aolmailheader:visited {color:magenta; text-decoration:underline; font-weight:normal;} a.aolmailheader:active {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; font-weight:normal;} a.aolmailheader:hover {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; font-weight:normal;} VETERANS RESOURCES NETWORK

http://www.valaw.org

http://38uscode.com

"Dear Readers,

Below is an article from the Navy Times with a list of Navy vessels released with and dates of exposure to agent orange during the Vietnam war.

Other ships may qualify, but these are the only ones on the list where it is currently conceded that there was agent orange exposure.

Your editor,

Ray B Davis, Jr

START: Agent Orange claims eased for shipboard sailors

By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer

Posted : Tuesday Feb 23, 2010 17:30:09 EST

Navy veterans from the Vietnam era may be eligible for new benefits after the Department of Veterans Affairs acknowledged that some "blue water" Navy vessels could have been exposed to Agent Orange while operating close to shore, according to a veterans group.

The Fleet Reserve Association, a not-for-profit advocacy group, said the VA's move could affect thousands of Navy vets potentially sickened by the poisonous chemical.

"This new information from the VA will make it easier for these Navy veterans to prove exposure and will hopefully facilitate more timely determination of benefits," said explains Chris Slawinski, FRA's national veterans' service officer.

"Thousands of Navy veterans who served aboard ships during the Vietnam conflict experience health problems related to herbicide exposure, but their illnesses and disabilities are not automatically considered service-connected in the eyes of the VA," Slawinski said.

Previously, the VA restricted some of these benefits to "boots on the ground" vets, Slawinski said.

The list, published in January, identifies the ships that the VA has confirmed were involved in brown water operations. Sailors serving on those ships during these specific times are potentially eligible for additional benefits.z

The following is the list of Navy vessels that conducted inland operations in Vietnam:

• All vessels of Inshore Fire Support Division 93 during their entire Vietnam tour, including inshore fire support ship Carronade, the medium rocket landing ship Clarion River, LSMR Francis River and LSMR White River.

• All vessels with the designation LCVP — landing craft, vehicle, personnel — during their entire tour.

• All vessels with the designation PCF — patrol craft, fast — during their entire tour.

• All vessels with the designation PBR — patrol boat, river — during their entire tour.

• The destroyer Ingersoll, which operated Oct. 24-25, 1965, on the Saigon River.

• The destroyer Mansfield, which operated Aug. 8-19, 1967, and Dec. 21-24, 1968, on the Saigon River.

• The destroyer Richard E. Kraus, which operated on a coastal inlet north of Da Nang, June 2-5, 1966, protecting Marines holding a bridge.

• The destroyer Basilone, which operated May 24-25, 1966, on the Saigon River.

• The destroyer Hamner, which operated on the Song Lon Tao and Long Song Tao rivers from Aug. 15 to Sept. 1, 1966.

• The destroyer Conway, which operated on the Saigon River in early August 1966.

• The destroyer Fiske, which operated on the Mekong River on June 16-21, 1966.

• The destroyer Black, which operated July 13-19, 1966, on the Saigon River.

• The light guided-missile cruiser Providence, which operated on the Saigon River for three days in January 1964.

• The guided-missile frigate Mahan, which operated Oct. 24-28, 1964, on the Saigon River.

• The attack transport Okanogan, which operated on the Saigon River in 1968: July 22-23, July 29-30 and Aug. 5-6.

• The combat stores ship Niagara Falls, which unloaded supplies on the Saigon River and in Cam Rahn Bay on April 22-25, 1968."

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/02/navy...orange_022310w/

-end-

__._,_.___

• 
  

.

__,_._,___

[jrfrog]

Hello, all,

PLEASE help me stop the disinformation and Urban Myth that has grown up around the release of the "inland waters" ship list. Ships that sailed on inland waters have ALWAYS been eligible for presumption of exposure. They were inside of Vietnam the same as boots on ground was. They are covered by the AO Act of 1991. The VA is bringing this out as a new and gracious allocation for the Blue Water Navy. NOT! Brown water sailors have always been eligible, as have ocean going ships that went up rivers and tributaries deep enough to hold them. This is a move on the part of the VA to make it look like they are handling some of the problems of the Blue Water Navy. NOT. They are desperate to convince Congress that they don't need to codify what is in the proposed legislation H2254 and S1939. They are running scared. And everyone is falling for it, hook, line and sinker.

The VA has NOT granted any presumption of exposure to Blue Water ships that were "close to shore" and as of today, they don't intend to.... they are NOT working on any such list. In fact, the VA has proclaimed that Ports and Harbors don't fall into the definition of inland waters (despite what the BVA ruled and what many of the Regional Office are ruling. They are doing that against the directives of VA Hqtrs. and I say GOOD FOR THEM!)

The VA is working on adding ships to the list of inland water awards. Blue Water Navy Association has submitted about 45 documented ships that comply with the requirements of being on inland waters, and I'll bet there are 100 more (even same ship, different WESTPAC). But there are 2 or less people working on this inside the VA, so there is no telling when an updated list will be released. If you think your ship should be on that list, submit your claim immediately, providing as much documentation (like statements from Cruise Books) as you possibly can.

The VA is not doing anybody any favors. When was the last time that happened?

[Stretch]

You are completely right.

The VA is trying to show some concern, for the exposures, by offering vessels that were already presumptive AO..The person and persons involved in attempting to offer this rabbit-out-of-the-hat, new and improved information should be held accountable....

[Chuck75]

I'd agree that all "Brown Water ships" are in fact, presumptive, even though the VA fights about it. The VA has had a really bad history of claiming that "Brown Water ships" Such as the LSTs and LSMRs were "Blue Water", since they were generally assigned to the 7th Fleet. The LSMRs were really problematic, in that they were assigned "offshore" firing missions, much the same as other, much larger, deeper draft ships such as "Tin Cans", and even Cruisers.

The LSMRs were shallow draft, allowing them to operate much closer to land than the deep draft ships. In addition, although a small ship. the eight dual 5" rocket launchers allowed the LSMRs to have a very high rate of fire. A "Tin Can" might fire a few rounds, usually from a 5" gun, and have some return fire. An LSMR might also, until they started salvos of up to 16 rockets at a time, and with just a few seconds between salvos. Generally, such a salvo brackets an area about the size of a football field. After one or at the most two salvos, no one in their right mind would take the time to even try and return fire. (Too busy running the H--- away if they were still alive!)

The LSTs were often used to land troops and supplies, usually by pulling the LST into a prepared beach, referred to as an "LST Ramp".

at Cau Vet, in 1967, I was on an LST off loading troops, when it came under Morter fire from across a river. Anyway, the VA usually required that the crews have documentation (that does not exist) showing that they went ashore. LSTs generally carried boats which were actually LCVPs.

The same LSTs were often assigned to the "Mobile Riverene Force" ("River Rats"), as support ships, and spent months at a time in the rivers and Delta. The 7th fleet LSTs carried three rapid fire, dual 3" 50 guns that were designed for A/A use. Since the LSTs did not have Gyro stabilization as the LSMRs had, the LSTs were not often used for fire support. They were occasionally used for "direct fire support" in that if the target was visible, it could be fired on by an LST. The Navys largest loss of life due to enemy action in a single incident (Ship) occurred in 1968 when the LST1167 was mined while attached to the "River Rats", and in a river.

Many of the smaller ships and the Vietnam era amphibious ships and "Tin Cans" were scrapped long ago. AO exposure might have been proven if the fresh water tanks on such ships were tested for AO. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, such testing was never done. The fresh water (from sea water) systems on the ships of that era were not capable of removing A.O., and quite likely allowed it to be concentrated in the tanks.

Although knowledge of A.O. contamination was not general at the time, I served on an LST in 1967 that would not take on fresh water from specific ports in Vietnam, even though the fresh water came from US facilities that provided water to thousands of US troops. Vung Tau/China Beach was one of the ports.

You are correct in that the VA has denied many claims presumptive status that are actually entitled to it. I had to prove "Feet on Ground" even though I served on both LSTs and LSMRs, and spent several months in the rivers and Delta of Vietnam. Actually proving direct A.O. exposure to the VA is very difficult. I often thought that the VA would try to deny, even if you presented them with an actual sample of the stuff.

Hello, all,

PLEASE help me stop the disinformation and Urban Myth that has grown up around the release of the "inland waters" ship list. Ships that sailed on inland waters have ALWAYS been eligible for presumption of exposure. They were inside of Vietnam the same as boots on ground was. They are covered by the AO Act of 1991. The VA is bringing this out as a new and gracious allocation for the Blue Water Navy. NOT! Brown water sailors have always been eligible, as have ocean going ships that went up rivers and tributaries deep enough to hold them. This is a move on the part of the VA to make it look like they are handling some of the problems of the Blue Water Navy. NOT. They are desperate to convince Congress that they don't need to codify what is in the proposed legislation H2254 and S1939. They are running scared. And everyone is falling for it, hook, line and sinker.

The VA has NOT granted any presumption of exposure to Blue Water ships that were "close to shore" and as of today, they don't intend to.... they are NOT working on any such list. In fact, the VA has proclaimed that Ports and Harbors don't fall into the definition of inland waters (despite what the BVA ruled and what many of the Regional Office are ruling. They are doing that against the directives of VA Hqtrs. and I say GOOD FOR THEM!)

The VA is working on adding ships to the list of inland water awards. Blue Water Navy Association has submitted about 45 documented ships that comply with the requirements of being on inland waters, and I'll bet there are 100 more (even same ship, different WESTPAC). But there are 2 or less people working on this inside the VA, so there is no telling when an updated list will be released. If you think your ship should be on that list, submit your claim immediately, providing as much documentation (like statements from Cruise Books) as you possibly can.

The VA is not doing anybody any favors. When was the last time that happened?

[Berta]

jrfrog:

"PLEASE help me stop the disinformation and Urban Myth that has grown up around the release of the "inland waters" ship list. Ships that sailed on inland waters have ALWAYS been eligible for presumption of exposure."

Really?

Can you post that regulation citation?

Then how come a Brown water vet I know-who was rated 100% P & T for AO disability-got a proposed reduction letter right before his child was set to use his DEA benefits- stating that his comp would be dropped because he never stepped one foot on ground-Vietnam.

He wasn't the only one- he had been awarded under the prior VSM reg and when the VA changed that regulation without even asking for public comment- many Brown Water vets could have been singled out by VA just as this Navy vet I mention was when the VA snuck in their new version of the VSM.

Ironically after many years of the 100% comp and after getting notice of the proposed reduction-he recalled and was able to prove he did step onto the shores of a tributary-to help a Vietnamese officer got on board the craft. He didn't lose his AO comp.On my very first SVR radio show on Agent Orange he called into the station and got on the air and briefly told the audience what happened to him- and how years after his initial award he had to prove boots on the ground.

What exact disinformation and what urban myth do you mean?

“

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has found

that the VA reasonably interpreted 38 U.S.C.A.

§ 1116(a)(1)(A) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) as requiring

the physical presence of a veteran within the land borders of

Vietnam (including inland waterways) during service, and that

the receipt of the Vietnam Service Medal alone does not

establish service in Vietnam. Haas v. Peake, 525 F. 3d

1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The

Leary operated in Vietnam waters (hostile fire zone) from

August to December 1967 and from March to August 1969 and

visited several specified foreign ports, but no visitations

of any kind on the landmass of Vietnam were documented.

Hence, the Board finds that service connection for DM, on the

basis of presumed AO exposure, is not warranted.

From : http://www4.va.gov/vetapp09/files2/0911339.txt

[Pete53]

The VA has consistently and with great vigor fought against service connection for Agent Orange, Chemical Exposure and atomic and probably many others including the free and cheap cigs that they caused Veterans to develop severe diseases that if they had not served would probably not have gotten.

I know that my diabetes is probably due to being stuck in a motor pool next to the bbls and also the chemicals I used to clean and repair radios. I can't prove it but I believe it is probably the cause. Its not that important cause I have 100% but I wonder how many Veterans have been cheated out of earned benefits cause of the hard core denials and I wonder why they do this.

At the VA I go to diabetes is rampant and 3 to 4 times as high as it is with civilians who did not serve The VA knows this and ignores it

Sometimes I really get angry that the VA makes it so hard for Veterans to obtain the benefits that they earned.

[Stretch]

There seems to be a switch that is turned off and on. Same as bi-lateral tinnitus, smoking, and several other service injuries. I don't know who is the operator or what motivates the switch, but it does happen. When it comes to AO, I think that DOW, Monsanto, and several other chemical companies are the switch operators, but I hope for not for too much longer.

I wonder how much money went into defeating Mr. Haas, and his attempt to rout the 'Boots on the Ground' switch? Haas is what put this limited 'Brown Water' in writing.

It could be that mesothelioma and its various diseases puts 'Boots on the Ground' too rest. Asbestos and AO exposures should be in writing as 'Blue Water' issues. I think this, putting it in writing, is what the Congressional Veterans Committee is trying to do right now to keep the VA from using a 'Flaw in the Law' attitude.

I don't think that asbestos exposure should be called "Boots on the Water" and only be inclusive of US Navy veterans, that were on ships, because asbestos was used in all services.

Legislation was already there, but it is the interpretation of legislation that is ambiguous and always changing. We need class action and the CAVC, and not only one or the other.