Agent Orange And The Navy

[bobbyq]

. I represent a Vietnam Navy vet with health issues A/O related. His ship docked in Da Nang and the Veterans Administration themselves gave us proof of this action THEMSELVES. Further the veteran provided a letter from a fellow seaman attesting to the fact they did dock in Da Nang. The VA has denied the claim and we are going on almost two years back and forth. They say, I quote: We have weighed the evience submitted in support of your claim and have determined that there is conflicting information in your letter submitted by R Cellille and the response from USASCRUR. You submitted a letter by RC stating that he served with you in the Navy on the USS POWER. Mr. RC stated that the USS POWER docked for refueling DA NANG Harbor and anchored so that all you had to do was disembark by the gangplank. This information conflicts with the information verified by USASCUR which states that the USS Power anchored in DA NANG Harbor for seven hours and motor whaleboat operations were conducted from the ship to the beach with the Commanding Officer and other personnel aboard for briefings ashore. The evidence submitted does not show that you have in-country Vietnam service. The veteran should not have to put with this and he should be granted service connection. The veteran was there and it is documented! He has the medical issues related to AO! There is at least a plausible causality of his exposure and the burden of proof is met.

[Hoppy]

The information in italics and bold below was taken from the site I linked in previous posts.

In addition to what they are saying I would get the veteran to draw a map showing

what he remembered about Da Nang at the time he was there. Then ask the VA to find

pictures of Da Nang that contridict the veterans map. Otherwise the veterans statements

as to what he has first hand knowledege of must be given weight.

"Here are a couple ways to think about doing that:

1) If you did go ashore in a docking, swear out a declaration or affidavit stating that, as well as the circumstances you remember. So long as your statement is credible and consistent with the character of your service, the VA will likely give you the benefit of the doubt and require no additional proof. So, if your ship records show it docked in Da Nang for 38 minutes, the VA will probably not give your statement much credit if you say you de-boarded and walked around the port for 2 hours. On the other hand, if you were an officer that went ashore for a meeting (or the coxswain that ferried officers to shore from an anchored vessel), stating this will likely be sufficient to prove “boots on the ground”.

[Berta]

"He has a buddy letter from a sailor on board that they docked and went off ship"

By "They" did the buddy specifically name this vet as going on shore with him?

Has he tried to get an additional buddy statement to corroborate what the first buddy said?

Does he have the ship's roster for other names to contact?

Has he attempted to find any reunions for his unit that could perhaps help with finding an additional buddy?

Will this help?

http://unitpages.military.com/unitpages/unit.do?id=704143

I am a firm believer that lots of research sure can pay off.

[Chuck75]

The VA has often ignored buddy letters, and if pressed as to why, come up with a plethora of reasons, among them "Not Notarized".

Anyway, the VA is still fighting about Da Nang. The Blue Water website has some documents that should be of great interest, among them - -

http://www.bluewaternavy.org/directexposure.htm

The old Da Nang USAFB was and is is contaminated with A/O, The river running through Da Nang also had runoff from A/O spraying.

I was on ships that tied up to the De Longhe? pier, beached at the LST ramp next to the bridge, and actually personally in the river near the bridge.

The ships I served on did not keep permanent records concerning who came and went in the normal course of events.

There was a daily sheet, but it was not kept or placed in the formal records. The Deck log was a separate document.

Even the Quarterdeck log was not preserved.

Even with statements from the ship's captains, stating that all the crewmen went ashore as the opportunity presented,

the VA still denied presumptive A/O cases for the most part, at least until the recent "Brown Water" list was published.

If you really want to start something, look at the Treasure Island Navy Base Firefighting School. It is/was a "Superfund Site" and contaminated with Dioxin.

Since thousands of sailors sent to the far east were "outfitted" and retrained at TI NB, and most went through fire fighting "refresher" training, it looks like many were exposed to dioxin before they even left the US.

The VARO did inform us OVER two weeks ago that our DRO decision would be coming. Still waiting, but I am hopeful we will prevail there. As previously stated the air around us is not restricted and we are all breathing the same air. The ship docked. FACT He was on board. FACT It docked more than once. FACT He has the illness'es related to AO. FACT He has a buddy letter from a sailor on board that they docked and went off ship. FACT etc etc.

[Hoppy]

Berta and Bobbyq

The VA has determined that the buddy letter is not credible due to the fact they are of the opinion that nobody left the ship by gangplanks. Even if the letter said specifically they went ashore the VA would still consider the letter as not credible. The documents the VA used to determine that only the CO and a small party to ashore using shore boats need to be obtained to see if they specifically rule out the use of a gang plank or if they only say that shore boats were used.

RO adjudicators have a propensity for inventing facts. If the documents used to determine that the CO went ashore on a shore boat and does not rule out a gang plank there is a chance the DRO will see the error and consider the buddy letter credible. The absence of evidence does not prove the buddy letter was not credible. I would think that the VA would need to come up with more specific facts. Such as, testimony from experts that the vessel was too big to get close enough to any known structure to deploy a gang plank.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Hoppy

[bobbyq]

Attached is the deck log. Here is what the VARO decision said...."the letter from Mr. AD ADASDF said the he served with you and the USS Power docked for refueling Da Nang Harbor and anchored so that all you had to do to disembark by gangplank. This information conflicts with the USAS UR which states that the USS Power anchored in Da Nang Harbor for seven hours and motor whaleboat operations were conducted from the ship to the beach with the Commanding Officer and other personnel aboard for briefings ashore. The evidence does not show in-country Vietnam service.

I do not know I have more evidence from the Shad experiments that I need to look at also because the USS Power was in the middle of that and I am currently waiting for the DRO decision to come back. So...............................I really appreciate all the feedback. Learning is what it is all about and all these different approaches give me strength/ Thank

[Hoppy]

Here is another possible consideration. I have not seen the buddy letter. I am not sure exactly what it says. Your post said that the buddy letter stated that he witnessed the veteran going ashore. In the decision they say that the buddy letter stated that the vessel was anchored in order for gang planks to be deployed.

If the buddy actually witnessed the veteran going ashore ands tated such in the letter, there is no need to get a more descriptive letter. However, if the letter only states that the gang planks were deployed then the VA's position "the evidence does not show in country Viet Nam service" is accurate. This is of course they do not count the fact that the boat was anchored as evidence that everyone on the boat qualified for in country service. If it were me and the buddy letter did not specifically say the veteran was witnessed going ashore on the gang plank and the veteran was witnessed going ashore I would certainly get the letter amended to show he was witnessed going ashore.

When the VA writes a denial they do not write it so specifically that you can figure out exactly what they want the letter to say.They just use non specific language saying there was insufficient evidence. The ships log does not rule out that a gang plank was available for departure. Additionally, the log record cited is obviously not complete. What happened after the whale boats were deployed? There was a seven hour period that is not addressed. I have seen BVA decisions in which they obtain statements from people who would be considered an expert in military procedures. Such an expert would need to testify that if a gang plank was available the ships log would certainly contain references to the fact that personnel were leaving and returning to thevessel on the gang plank and that such activity would be logged without exception. Without such a statement the adjudicators are only guessing that the veteran did not go ashore. RO adjudicators are really good at turning guesses into facts.

On my angioedema claim they denied the claim saying there was evidence in the file indicating the disease was the result of post service employment. They did not identify specific documents by title, date or author they were referring to as evidence the disease was the result of post service employment. I appealed saying that there was no such evidence. The claim was closed and they would not reopen the claim based on the fact that they did not specifically identify the evidence they used to deny the claim. The VA took no action on the appeal for two years. I had no idea what evidence they were talking about. One night I woke up in the middle of the night and figured out that they confused another condition that resulted from employment with my angioedema claim. They did nothing until I found the medical records showing the condition that was the result of post service employment had a different diagnosis than the condition I was requesting to be service connected. They took a wild guess that the condition caused by employment was related to my angioedema claim. They re-opened the claim when I busted them at their wild guess that they falsely turned into medical fact.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Hoppy