Blue Water Navy And Ao

[john999]

I heard on the news today that a blue water navy vet who was offshore of Vietnam had his DMII claim accepted based on the exposure to AO. Some federal judge made the ruling. It should be in the newspaper or at VAwatchdog soon with more details. I did not think I would live to see that. Maybe some more conditions will be added to the presumptive list if their is a liberalizing mood for AO victims.

[DaveBarker]

I heard on the news today that a blue water navy vet who was offshore of Vietnam had his DMII claim accepted based on the exposure to AO. Some federal judge made the ruling. It should be in the newspaper or at VAwatchdog soon with more details. I did not think I would live to see that. Maybe some more conditions will be added to the presumptive list if their is a liberalizing mood for AO victims.

I have been a veterans service officer since 1977. I have worked on Agent Orange claims since 1977.

I have also worked PTSD claims since 2/7/1983. Before that it was called "Anxiety neurosis, adult situational reaction" claims.

Currently I am working at the Chillicothe VAMC in Ohio, formerly I worked at the Franklin County Veterans Service Commission in Columbus. My website has books and article concerning many issues most people avoided in the past.

http://www.geocities.com/dave_barker_amvet/index.html

The appeals court threw out the VA "in-country" position last week. It is time to reopen the AO Blue Water claims. See your veterans organization service officer.

I submitted the following statement with every Blue water Navy claim I filed since the VA sudden change in policy upon the regulation of “in-country status” by VA Counsel after diabetes type 2 was recognized in November 2000.

Here it is:

Probably the most divided group of veterans in the history of America is the beleaguered Vietnam veteran. This group of veterans were generally rejected by the American people early in the war that none of them started. Most of those serving in Vietnam from 1959 through the literal end of the war were patriotic young people who desired to defend the United States from her enemies. Sometimes the young veteran would have a problem of sorting out just who was the enemy. In Vietnam, the natives who worked during the day turned into the guerilla at night.

We also had the enemy at home. Those who protested the war for one reason or another.

Many of those were prominent politicians, actors and education leaders. There positions were well choreographed to make those serving look as they were interfering with the chosen lifestyle of the Vietnamese people. When in reality the Vietnamese people were being terrorized by their Communist brethren.

We also have the problem of those veterans who separate themselves as ‘in-country’ and those called ‘Era vets’ a situation not seen during WWII or the Korean war. In the years I have worked with veterans this one issue of were you ‘in-country’ has caused a great schism in the ranks of those who served from 1959 to 1975.

When the Vietnam veteran returned home they discovered many health problems those who did not go to Vietnam did not suffer. These veterans went to the Veterans Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs) and made attempts to discover the common link to those problems. It was not long before herbicide exposure was the culprit. For reasons never fully explained the VA rejected nearly every idea put forth from this group of veterans. Even their fellow veterans from other conflicts rejected their quest for answers.

Over two decades we sought information to link herbicide exposure and the health problems which were taking lives at early ages in this select group. It appeared the more research by the supporters of the Vietnam veterans, the more resistance by the government and some of the veterans of prior conflicts. It was not until the San Francisco District Court Of Appeals ruling in which Agent Orange went to trial in San Francisco and was found guilty. On May 3, 1989 in the U.S. District Court, the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson held that former Veterans Administration head, Thomas K. Turnage had imposed "an impermissibly demanding test" for determining whether an ailment could be linked to dioxin. A position many of us had stated for over a decade.

The ruling was not appealed by the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This has opened the doors for new opportunities for those who have been maimed by this, the deadliest of man made synthetic chemical compounds, TCDD or as we know it Agent Orange. Multiple Thousands of claims nearly 34,000, at that time had been denied over the years. So in the next decade the VA established regulations concerning diseases and exposure. The regulations have been changed as new diseases were recognized. In the early 1990’s those who were in the adjacent waters to Vietnam were presumed exposed. When diabetes type 2 was recognized in November of 2000, the regulations were revisited by those in the legal departments of the VA. The presumption of exposure to herbicides was changed by the VA..

The VA has denied many claims since mid 2001, stating the veteran was not exposed due to the fact he did not go ashore. This is an incorrect assumption based on economics and not fact. The current Agent Orange exposure in-country regulation:

“(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1112)

(6) Diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents. (i) For the purposes of this section, the term ``herbicide agent'' means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the period

beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, specifically: 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD; cacodylic acid; and picloram.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1116(a)(4))

(ii) The diseases listed at Sec. 3.309(e) shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, except that chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy shall have

become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service.

(iii) A veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. The last date on which such a veteran shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent shall be the last date on which he or she served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975. ‘Service in the Republic of Vietnam’ includes service in the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam.”

When a person is within the geographical or territorial limits of the land mass, that person is considered by international law within the nation. There are recorded incidents of U.S. warships being seized (USS Pueblo 1968) and U.S. fishing vessels (Peru 1964), as well as the US Navy boarding Russian vessels (Cuba 1962). Thus my position has been accepted as law, by the Executive Branch of the United States of America. There are no provisions in Title 38 of the United States Code, for any department, agency or division to deny due process under accepted treaty, law or regulations of the United States of America.

[Berta]

Dave's the Real deal - an excellent VSO!

the electronic vet's community knows him and many of you here do too-

This is a very good assessment of some of the problems that Vietnam vets have had-

They (VA) have to re-open denied Blue Water claims- and hopefully- Blue Waters who never filed a claim will see this on the news-

Will VA re-open these claims on their own? most surely not- the vet's will have to make formal application for re-open-

I only hope that the vet reps and SOs that I always bash-will get a clue on this new decision and help their Blue Water vets.

Hope this news gets into the Vet mags at VAMC lobbies-

if they still have subscriptions to them

[john999]

So Berta you think we Vietnam vets should file for any condition we have now in hopes that it will be added to the presumptive list in the future to preserve the effective date? The VBM has a long list of diseases that have a good possibility of being added in the coming years. Mental disorders are one of the ones most likely to be added. This is a very big deal or could be a big deal down the road. In the not so distant future the senile dementia type diseases are going to be affecting RVN vets (not too soon I hope). I wonder how dioxin exposure will affect that type of mental disorder? This is the type of disease that could bankrupt the families of veterans down the road.

You know this AO thing is all about the government limiting its "exposure" to liability for ailing RVN vets. I wonder how many RVN vet are still alive out of the 2.5 million that served in country and offshore? Has anyone done a mortality study on in country vets? Since two of my buddies in Nam are dead and another very sick I just have to wonder about this.

[Berta]

Yes- AO vets should add any condition at all that they have to a claim and state that every condition is due to AO-

as well as due to anything else with a separate nexus-

'It is the policy of the Dept of VA to consider a veteran for any disability they have for potential SC.'

or words to that affect in 38 USC----

They dont do it-

It should be the responsibility of the veteran to tell VA of every condition they have and also any potential means of service connecting it.

Lawyers use every single thing they can to defend or prosecute someone-

we have to too-

The rate of deceased Vietnam vets - as I recall a survey done at least ten years ago years ago-

(and there must be newer surveys on the net)

was a death rate that appeared to be consistently higher than it should be for Vietnam vets who were younger when this survey was done.

This info on the survey was on the PTSD packet that my husband brought home from the 21 day in house PTSD program at the Buffalo VAMC 11 years ago.

Edited August 21, 2006 by Berta

[Berta]

forgot to add-

Three weeks after Rod returned home from the PTSD program he dropped dead.

The wannabee they put in the 21 day program with him a other combat vets, called me from time to time after he died and told me two of the other vets in the same 21 day Vietnam"tour" at this VAMC with Rod, they dropped dead too-

then again this was a wannabee and I helped him try to get SC but he was a bonafide wannabee.

Many Vietnam vets I knew from the Combat group in Trenton vet center are DEAD.

If the VA would put faith in Dr. Boscarino and their own Chief of Cardiology, Dr. Eliot, they would start diagnosing and treating heart disease in vets before it escalates and the vet goes in the crapper-

They have to start diagnosing DMII better too- that annual glucose reading you get doesn't mean anything-

even the HBIAC test has problems if the HBIAC machine is not properly calibrated.

These problems that VA could resolve and save lives are costly- so they dont do it.

They often treat symptoms and thus save money on treating cause.

[john999]

Amen to that Berta

You can have high Glucose readings for years and never get a diagnosis of DMII. In the meantime what damage is being done. According to the VA's training letter a fasting glucose level over 126 means DMII. Mine was 169 last time and the VA wrote and told me that all my lab results were just fine. I already have the DMII service connected but you can see they are not doing a damn thing. I see a regular MD on the outside to keep up with this thing. You don't get a diagnosis of DMII until you file a claim was my experience.