Berta Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/Files1/1108696.txt this news is from snakecharmer at veteransinfogroups&yahoo.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 MikeHunt Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 With Royal Thai, JSRRC will say tactical herbicides were only used early in the Vietnam era (Leading one to conclude there's a contradiction in VAs Thai eligibility dates). Thai eligibility is based on massive use of commercial herbicides; JSRRC's statement only introduces a 'red herring' into a veteran's claim. (actually based on the principle of Nehmer, if you are familiar with the decision) Try to always speak in 'herbicide' exposure, so as not to unwittingly help the deniers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Berta Posted January 15, 2017 Author Share Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) "(actually based on the principle of Nehmer, if you are familiar with the decision) " I am very familiar with the multiple Nehmer decisions since the first one in 1991. Nehmer only covers incountry Vietnam veterans based on presumption. It covers their surviving spouses as well. I am a Nehmer claimant. All other vets who have been awarded for AO disabilities elsewhere than Vietnam,have to prove direct exposure to AO. To add -some JSRRC clown put out a false statement here: that might have denied MANY Thailand Vet claims erroneously. We deal with idiots at every level. Edited January 15, 2017 by Berta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Since this citation states he was at Fort McClellan why can't the rest be approved also? Especially with some of the same diseases like DM2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berta Posted May 29, 2011 Author Share Posted May 29, 2011 All of the Thailand and CONUS awards for AO so far have involved proof of direct exposure to Agent Orange. I know 2 of those veterans and their research and relentless quest for proof was what turned their claims around. The VA Thailand directive (prepared by VA due to the Thailand vet's research) reflects how an MOS along with proof of AO usage on a base perimeter can prove direct AO exposure. It is highly likely that this statement from the decision : “the DoD certification leaves open the possibility that herbicides may have been used in the manner described by the Veteran, to clear brush and weeds around the Tiger Village. Both the Veteran and his direct supervisor have stated that he was exposed to herbicides when photographing a training exercise. The basis for the supervisor's knowledge is unknown, but the Veteran relies upon reports made to him at the time by the officer in charge of the exercise, who told him Agent Orange had just been sprayed and they should stay out of certain areas.” and the description of his close proximity to the “Tiger Village” would have exposed him to AO due to his MOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAC-Vet75 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Here's another interesting Ft. McClellan case http://www.va.gov/vetapp07/files5/0740357.txt decision date:12/21/07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
Berta
http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/Files1/1108696.txt
this news is from snakecharmer at veteransinfogroups&yahoo.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
3
1
1
1
Popular Days
May 29
2
Jan 15
2
May 28
1
Jun 1
1
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 3 posts
jan 1 post
WAC-Vet75 1 post
MikeHunt 1 post
Popular Days
May 29 2011
2 posts
Jan 15 2017
2 posts
May 28 2011
1 post
Jun 1 2011
1 post
5 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now