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.

[Berta]

What gets me is when I see a DMII award and the VA gives the C & P date for the retro-

yeah right- you dont get DMII at a C & P exam!

but some vets would accept that date----and not question it-

John- there were thousands of men and women aboard ships in the South China Sea from 1962 to 1975.

Not just Navy- all branches- even Operation Hope was in AO waters.

I mean Op Arc Light, and the whole 7th Fleet Dixie Station etc-that is a lot of veterans.

I wonder how many thousands of vets this new AO decision could potentially affect.

As well as some AO widows who may not even know of this yet and also some children.(hope not there but it is possible)

Edited August 21, 2006 by Berta

[jessejames]

This I think expands on how far the VA Secretary and the VA will go to screw Vietnam vets. See the highlighted sections below, jj

===================

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,110726,00.html

Court Expands Coverage for Vietnam Vets

Military.com | By Terry Howell | August 21, 2006

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims has announced a landmark decision in the case of Haas v. Nicholson. This ruling could directly affect thousands of disabled Vietnam-era Navy veterans.

The Court's ruling states that Veterans Affairs requirement for “boots on the ground” as the definition of “service in the Republic of Vietnam” is unreasonable, and does not align with the Congress's intent. In addition the law does not limit application of the presumption of service connection for herbicide exposure to those who set foot on the soil of the Republic of Vietnam. The Court cited that the law defines “service in the Republic of Vietnam” as including “service in the waters offshore, or service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in Vietnam.”

According to court documents the unclear nature of the policy was further demonstrated when Secretary Nicholson was asked to apply the regulatory interpretation in the case of a veteran who served in the waters off of Vietnam, in water where his feet did not touch the seabed, versus a veteran who was in the waters where he was able to touch the seabed, he responded that neither veteran would be entitled to the presumption because the regulatory definition is limited to those veterans “who set foot on land, if you will boots on ground, not touching the ocean floor.” When later asked if there was a difference between the case of a veteran who served on a vessel floating up a river - which, according to the Secretary's argument, could be miles wide - who never touched land within the Republic of Vietnam, and a veteran who served on a ship within 100 feet of the shoreline who never touched the land, the Secretary simply responded, without rationale, that the latter form of service would not warrant application of the presumption of service.

The Court's opinion further states that VA's regulation defining “service in the Republic of Vietnam” is ambiguous and that VA's interpretation of the regulatory term “service in the Republic of Vietnam,” allowing the application of the presumption of exposure to herbicides only to Vietnam-era veterans who set foot on land, is “inconsistent with longstanding agency views, plainly erroneous in light of legislative and regulatory history, and unreasonable, and must be SET ASIDE.”

Note: The Court also discovered that the VA changed the Adjudication Procedure Manual to exclude receipt of the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) as a definition of “service in the Republic of Vietnam” in 2002. The Court's decision may force VA to rethink this policy change.

The elimination of the requirement for “boots on ground” will mean that blue water Navy Vietnam veterans can now file claims based on service in the Republic of Vietnam including “service in the waters offshore.”

This decision may open the floodgates to millions of Vietnam-era disability claims. Navy Vietnam veterans are encouraged to contact their local Veterans Service Officer as soon as possible to determine if they are eligible to receive disability compensation based on this ruling.

[Berta]

"millions of Vietnam-era disability claims"

yeah- I said thousands of men and women -yesterday- but this guy might be right-millions

Vietnam 1962-1975---South China Sea is a big place-

Blue Water to me- I am civilian so correct me if I am wrong-

could potentially include Air Force or any personnel from any branch that landed on or departed from, by air, a USA vessel in the 7th Fleet-

The AO regs do not include fly- overs yet if these vets were on a ship in Blue Water, they were exposed by virtue of being on the ship.

There were members here some time ago who thought I was going too far when I talked about sea contamination and plumes from AO that could move eastward into all of shore waters-

the ship's laundering water supply and other means of AO contamination of vets.

Certainly any current Vietnamese newspaper shows the lingering affects of AO to Vietnam.

http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/showarticle.php?num=01HEA300505

Please pass this Haas news on to any potential AO vet you know.

And tell them to file a claim or re-open one if they were denied.

We had a AO vet here-who the VA cued themselves on his AO compensation.

He was a Blue Water but got into Brown Water.

We emailed each other on how to fight the CUE-

He did a LOT of work on this-

He had been getting SC for years for AO.

He asked for a hearing and they must have read his rebuttal good- because they cancelled the hearing and they dropped their CUE on themselves and the status quo on this vet's claim held and he will remain-a fully compensated AO vet.

He is in my mind the First Blue Water that the VA ever SCed but this was done at the VARO level so no public

evidence at BVA, CAVC etc-

Would you believe this- I STILL have not read the entire 29 pages-

Col. Dan, Ray Davis, and many electronic vets are getting this news out-

but as the above AO emailed me last night- this is not what the news media perceives as BIG news-

I hope every vet org with vet reps has a poster on their front door or in their local VAMCs and DOMs about this news.

This is the type of situation that might force the VA to hire and train more claims specialists- depending on how many of these Blue Water vets file or re-open claims.

I am going to try to get my main claim off the books-

I am taking actions that might get it resolved fast-

so that it is one less claim they have to deal with -----

and my other claims they have at the RO can stand aside for any AO Blue Water vet's claim-

This decision could alter the way the VA does business- it might have to.