This claim was originally filed in 2003 and was denied several times, lost a few times, kicked around to various regional offices and eventually remanded for a C&P exam. I was asked to take a look in 2011 and I started working feverishly with the widow. There was a lot of evidence gathering in the face of the usual sea of naysayers but we never lost focus. It is very difficult for a Thailand veteran to win, much less the thought of a sole surviving widow signing on upon the death of the veteran and seeing the claim through to a win. Needless to say, the evidence needed to be overwhelming. I venture to say that this the very first win for a sole surviving spouse in a Thailand herbicide exposure claim. It is important to note that the veteran was not an MP nor was he a dog handler. When it is posted on the BVA list of prior decisions web site it is DOCKET NO. 09-17 560 and dated June 02, 2014.
It is such an honor for me to be able to work these kind of claims to a win. I expect that a 100% award will be awarded in the claim because the death of the veteran was the result of the now service connected chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
The following is an excerpt from an email that I received from the widow this afternoon.
It has been a long, emotional, and painful ordeal, but I did receive a letter today from the Board of Veteran’s Appeal that says – For accrued benefits purposes, service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is granted.
I had James Cripps, a friend who has guided me, the first vet to win an AO claim stateside, who works daily with vets – read the decision tonight to re-assure me.
I am going to copy two paragraphs that I thought was so interesting and James also pointed it out:
An August 2007memorandum of the Compensation and Pension Service confirmed that herbicides such as Agent Orange were only applied in Thailand from April-September, 1964, 3 ½ years prior to the Veteran’s duty there. Moreover, the only application site in Thailand was the Pranburi Military Reservation, not U-Tapao. However, the memorandum determined that routine maintenance such as brush clearing, weed killing, and range management was conducted by the base civil engineer at U-Tapao, and that involved commercial herbicides applied by certified applicators. The memorandum notes that security police units and dog handlers were known to have walked the perimeters and therefore have a greater likelihood of exposure to commercial pesticides and herbicides.
Several letters were submitted by fellow-servicemen who served with the Veteran, or served at the same base in Thailand. These accounts endorsed the Veteran’s assertion that he was present at the perimeter of the base at U-Tapao. While the Veteran is not presumed to have been exposed to any herbicide based on his service, based on the Veteran’s assertions as corroborated by these statements, the Board finds that, it is at least likely as not that he was actually exposed to herbicides during his service.
Question
jamescripps2
This claim was originally filed in 2003 and was denied several times, lost a few times, kicked around to various regional offices and eventually remanded for a C&P exam. I was asked to take a look in 2011 and I started working feverishly with the widow. There was a lot of evidence gathering in the face of the usual sea of naysayers but we never lost focus. It is very difficult for a Thailand veteran to win, much less the thought of a sole surviving widow signing on upon the death of the veteran and seeing the claim through to a win. Needless to say, the evidence needed to be overwhelming. I venture to say that this the very first win for a sole surviving spouse in a Thailand herbicide exposure claim. It is important to note that the veteran was not an MP nor was he a dog handler. When it is posted on the BVA list of prior decisions web site it is DOCKET NO. 09-17 560 and dated June 02, 2014.
It is such an honor for me to be able to work these kind of claims to a win. I expect that a 100% award will be awarded in the claim because the death of the veteran was the result of the now service connected chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
The following is an excerpt from an email that I received from the widow this afternoon.
It has been a long, emotional, and painful ordeal, but I did receive a letter today from the Board of Veteran’s Appeal that says – For accrued benefits purposes, service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is granted.
I had James Cripps, a friend who has guided me, the first vet to win an AO claim stateside, who works daily with vets – read the decision tonight to re-assure me.
I am going to copy two paragraphs that I thought was so interesting and James also pointed it out:
An August 2007memorandum of the Compensation and Pension Service confirmed that herbicides such as Agent Orange were only applied in Thailand from April-September, 1964, 3 ½ years prior to the Veteran’s duty there. Moreover, the only application site in Thailand was the Pranburi Military Reservation, not U-Tapao. However, the memorandum determined that routine maintenance such as brush clearing, weed killing, and range management was conducted by the base civil engineer at U-Tapao, and that involved commercial herbicides applied by certified applicators. The memorandum notes that security police units and dog handlers were known to have walked the perimeters and therefore have a greater likelihood of exposure to commercial pesticides and herbicides.
Several letters were submitted by fellow-servicemen who served with the Veteran, or served at the same base in Thailand. These accounts endorsed the Veteran’s assertion that he was present at the perimeter of the base at U-Tapao. While the Veteran is not presumed to have been exposed to any herbicide based on his service, based on the Veteran’s assertions as corroborated by these statements, the Board finds that, it is at least likely as not that he was actually exposed to herbicides during his service.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
3
3
3
1
Popular Days
Jun 6
12
Jun 7
3
Jun 11
2
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 3 posts
jamescripps2 3 posts
Computer Tech 3 posts
Notorious Kelly 1 post
Popular Days
Jun 6 2014
12 posts
Jun 7 2014
3 posts
Jun 11 2014
2 posts
Popular Posts
jamescripps2
This claim was originally filed in 2003 and was denied several times, lost a few times, kicked around to various regional offices and eventually remanded for a C&P exam. I was asked to take a look
Chuck75
Kadena USAFB From Wikipedia In June 2013, the government of Japan discovered 22 barrels buried on former base property that tests showed had previously contained dioxins and herbicides. Tests on the
16 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