Us Navy And A/o

[bobbyq]

Went through this once before but I did not have the attachments Berta requested so I will try again. What the hay is wrong with the VA? I have a decision Docket No. 04-00 250 dated 11-09-09 Citation No. 0941678 that matches the SAME circumstances as this Navy vet and the VA just shot down the DRO we requested. Do they not read? Berta can you help me? I will send my email address if you want it.

[Berta]

The new Nehmer Training Guide prepared by NVLSP on page 47 has this condition:

"Service aboard a ship that anchored in an open deep-water harbor, such as Da Nang, Vung Tau, or Cam Ranh Bay, along the RVN coast does not constitute inland waterway service or qualify as docking to the shore and is not sufficient to establish presumptive exposure to herbicides. Evidence of shore docking is required in order to concede the possibility that the Veteran's service involved duty or visitation in the RVN

Page 47 Nehmer Training letter from NVLSP (available in our AO forum)

They are making a big distinction between shore docking and anchoring.

I suggest this veteran get online at Blue Water Navy site and ask John Rossie how he should proceed with this.

The citation BVA case does puzzle me as it seems to contraindicate the docking regulation but the BVA-I found when I got my award- leaves out lots of pertinent evidence in their decision sometimes and there might be more to the other vet's claim then they posted at the BVA.

The decision you attached here bothers me and he should mention this to JR too:

Service aboard a ship that anchored in an open deep-water harbor, such as Da Nang, Vung Tau, or Cam Ranh Bay, along the RVN coast does not constitute inland waterway service or qualify as docking to the shore and is not sufficient to establish presumptive exposure to herbicides. Evidence of shore docking is required in order to concede the possibility that the Veteran's service involved duty or visitation in the RVN

USASCRUR really doesnt exist anymore as it is now JSRRC.

So I wonder if the VA really checked this through JSRRC and I suggest the vet do that himself. JSRRC contact info is here under a search.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Berta

[bobbyq]

Want to say thanks for this and I will proceed as you suggest. Yeah the decision is right on point to give this veteran his due but I am assuming the VA did not read it and just went on current law, which is really contradicted by this decision. We will file an appeal, especially since they chose to ignore and say that the buddy letter of disembarking from the ship is not clear. You either disembarked or did not. How does that not apply. There whole thing is that if you were not on the whaleboat then you did not disembark. They were docked and there was a gangplank. Thanks again. Appreciated.

[Berta]

"They were docked and there was a gangplank "- a key point-

http://www.bluewaternavy.org/

The Danang Harbor Report at the site by John Rossie and Wallace Ward and their "how to use " guide to the report might help this vet.

I need to re-read it myself.It is excellent.

[jbasser]

You are up against a very stubborn rating person at the RO.

You are going to have to go to the BVA to settle this claim.

Sailors are getting shafted since the Haas case was slammed.

Hang in there. You have to play their game since they own the playing field and there is no referees.

John

[Chuck75]

The Da Nang bay is actually quite large. Ships anchored in the outer portions of the harbor, (Large ships, ships waiting for pier space, etc.) were at sort of one A.O. hazard level. Ships at the docks/piers, or ships such as LST's using the river LST ramp were at greater hazard for A.O. exposure. The river carried runoff containing A O, along with massive organic contamination from raw sewerage. The large USAFB had a fair amount of runoff, and used A.O. to control vegetation.

It might be argued that the EPA standards are 0% for dioxin, and the fact that ships of the time were not capable of removing dioxin from distilled fresh water are factors. In addition, the fresh water tanks usually were lined to prevent rust and so forth, and the lining material

helped concentrate the dioxin.

All that aside, it's obvious that the VA has /had decided to take a position that is not rational in light of what is known now, and, like many government bureaucratic entities, will not change until they get hammered. (Politically, in court, or by public opinion. At one point the VA was saying that docking was not enough, and a sailor had to somehow prove the fact that he/she actually went ashore.

Evidence of shore docking can usually be obtained by getting copies of the ship's logs. It is important to know the exact dates to reduce the search effort time and cost. Most of the Vietnam era logs were still on microfilm, and had not been digitized the last time I got involved.

It's a pity that the ship in question did not carry an LCVP as the ships boat, since certain kinds of boats are on the "brown water" list.

The new Nehmer Training Guide prepared by NVLSP on page 47 has this condition:

"Service aboard a ship that anchored in an open deep-water harbor, such as Da Nang, Vung Tau, or Cam Ranh Bay, along the RVN coast does not constitute inland waterway service or qualify as docking to the shore and is not sufficient to establish presumptive exposure to herbicides. Evidence of shore docking is required in order to concede the possibility that the Veteran's service involved duty or visitation in the RVN

Page 47 Nehmer Training letter from NVLSP (available in our AO forum)

They are making a big distinction between shore docking and anchoring.

I suggest this veteran get online at Blue Water Navy site and ask John Rossie how he should proceed with this.

The citation BVA case does puzzle me as it seems to contraindicate the docking regulation but the BVA-I found when I got my award- leaves out lots of pertinent evidence in their decision sometimes and there might be more to the other vet's claim then they posted at the BVA.

The decision you attached here bothers me and he should mention this to JR too:

Service aboard a ship that anchored in an open deep-water harbor, such as Da Nang, Vung Tau, or Cam Ranh Bay, along the RVN coast does not constitute inland waterway service or qualify as docking to the shore and is not sufficient to establish presumptive exposure to herbicides. Evidence of shore docking is required in order to concede the possibility that the Veteran's service involved duty or visitation in the RVN

USASCRUR really doesnt exist anymore as it is now JSRRC.

So I wonder if the VA really checked this through JSRRC and I suggest the vet do that himself. JSRRC contact info is here under a search.

Edited January 7, 2011 by Chuck75

[john999]

If it was me I would hire a lawyer due to the fact this RO is probably operating on orders from the top. The VA wants to limit the damage and what better way than to just deny an entire class of vets a benefit. They are going to quibble and stall over phrases and words and definitions hoping you will just give up or die. A good vet lawyer may be able to lay his hands on exactly what you need when you go to the BVA. How much retro are we talking about here?