Will Va Finally Admit That Da Nang Harbor Is An Inland Waterway?

[Matthew Hill]

My client, Robert Gray, has asked me to share his Veterans Court case because it could have a profound impact on blue water veterans who sailed into Da Nang Harbor during the Vietnam War. The case is in the Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims (Robert H. Gray v. Robert A. McDonald 13-3339). The Court must decide whether Da Nang Harbor is an inland waterway. Our argument is simple: the Supreme Court's definition that a harbor is an inland waterway should be controlling in this case. VA states that VA has the ability to define words as it sees fit. The case is going to a panel of three judges at the end of February. We’ve done a write up (http://www.hillandponton.com/will-va-finally-admit-da-nang-harbor-inland-waterway) on it on our blog and will continue to update it as the case progresses.

If the Court finds in our favor then VA will be bound by its decision that Da Nang Harbor is an inland waterway and it will have to compensate veteran sailors who have Agent Orange disabilities that went into the harbor.

The odds are stacked against us, as this ruling would benefit tens of thousands of et but Mr Gray is excited to push this issue and, at the least, get publicity to the plight of those arbitrarily left out of Nehmer’s Agent Orange presumption.

Mr. Gray wants to get the word out to as many blue water vets as possible.

Regards,

Matthew Hill

[Pete53]

Thank you for the information.

[benanna]

Worth noting that there are many many Vietnam war sailors who were directly effected by being in Da Nang harbor and not aware of agent orange exposure, especially if they were stationed on board amphibious ships such as LSD, LPD, LST, etc. These kinds of ships has a ballast up/ballast down well deck which is basically a launching pad for all the landing crafts that went into the inland waterways in Vietnam. If the landing crafts were contaminated with Agent Orange, so did the mother ships. For instance, the USS Hermitage (LSD) was in operation around the Da Nang harbor during the early 70s, and this ship have since been listed as contaminated ships.

[Berta]

Here is the latest VA AO ship's list and it has grown over the years:

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/shiplist/list.asp

I am a member of Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association.....have you contacted Commander John Wells or John Rossie on this?

If not ,I can do that. I will also get a statrus on their AO Blue WAter Equity Bill in the House.

I will carefully go over the CAVC filings later today and also your blog and will email you if I have anything I could add to this.

The AO issue has been the most important vet's issue of my life , ever since NVLSP won the first Nehmer case, long before I ever dreamed I would be the widow of an AO vet,

AO DMII (undiagnosed and untreated) contributing to death 2010 Direct SC death Award.

AO IHD (untreated and undiagnosed ) main cause of death . 2012 Direct SC death Award

Trumping

FTCA settlement and 1151, 38 USC award for wrongful death ( 1998)

Thank you for bringing this info to us!

Edited January 22, 2015 by Berta

[Berta]

I just gave your online secretary my email and phone number.....

I helped another lawyer with an AO case at the CAVC years ago via some contact he had with NVLSP ,who referred him to me..

I found 2 errors in the BVA decision and he also found them as well.......but it did not help his client at all.....

I would love to see this vet;'s BVA case as well.

This is

BIG

[Berta]

"The Nehmer provisions apply in Vietnam Agent Orange claims, including Brown Water navy cases, adjudicated on or after September 25, 1985 where service connection was denied because the condition at issue was not on the Agent Orange presumptive list at the time but was later added to the list. Advocates should ensure that new claims granted using the new C&P databases on these vessels receive a proper effective date if the veteran had a previously denied claim as appropriate to the Nehmer provisions and not solely based on the newly reopened claim's effective date."

(sorry cant find the link forgot to post it.)

This veteran served on the USS Roark, which is not on the VA AO ships list.

The USS Roark is a DE 1053 , and vets on this type of ship are often called the Tin Can Sailors.

Some vets who served on this ship possibly during the same time frame this vet did had their email addys at this site:

http://www.destroyers.org/smrde/USS_Roark.html

It is under the Tin Can Sailor registry and I dont know how current the info is, if needed for buddy statements? or for contacting them when this case succeeds.

The key situation here is the VA's definition of Danang Harbor.

I had a Brown water AO vet who VA tried to reduce completely from 100% P & T years ago.

His kids were set to go to college and their Chap 35 as well as everything else was threatened.

He had requested a hearing in VA in Florida.

After we worked on the claim , his hearing was CANCELLED and his benefits were restored.

LOTS of work on both of our parts.

We could not prove 'Boots' on ground (they had cued the AO award) but we did prove ONE Boot on ground.

It was after I asked this vet one question and Bingo.......one of the best days of my life!

However this vet had enhanced his claim, before that Bingo conversation we had, by getting his daughter's English teacher to define the regulations in a way that might have helped him a lot, and I had some Maritime info too, regarding territorial waters etc etc.....yet the One Boot on ground is what did it.

That is why this case here is so important.

How the heck can VA say Danang Harbor vets were not exposed to AO? Yet all the Danang Marines like my husband sure were.

Heck the last dioxin report on Danang ( I popsted this report here maybe in 2005..or..maybe on the older hadit board) found the dioxin level was higher then during the war there.

I still believe that the coastal Vietnam seabirds ( who are highly susceptible to any POP ( dioxin) and can retain POPs ( persistent organic pollutants )in their systems for a long time, exposed Navy vets to AO via their urine and feces on the decks and probably even directly on the sailors.

"Deploying again to WestPac on 7 January 1971 Towers proceeded to Vietnamese waters via Pearl Harbor and Midway. While she proceeded west on the 20th one of the other ships in her convoy Roark (DE-1053) suffered a major engine room fire which stopped her dead in the water. Towers turned-to and lent a hand. After the fire was extinguished the guided missile destroyer took Roark in tow until Quapaw (ATF-110) arrived and took over the towing. "


http://www.hullnumber.com/DDG-9

Where was she USS Roark) towed to......to .a pier or dock in Vietnam?

The USS Towers had already been exposed to AO in Vietnam and is on the VA's AO ship's list.:

"Towers (DDG-9) Operated on Saigon River and Rung Sat Special Zone during July 1966 "

- See more at: http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/shiplist/list.asp#T

It the USS Towers has been conceded to have been exposed to AO in 1966, prior to when this vet was aboard the Roark, one can assume the Roark was exposed as well.via the tugging operation (Of course VA doesn't think like I do)



But NOTHING is Impossible with the VA. I am living proof of that.

It just takes a lot of reading, research and leg work.

This CAVC claim is a semantic issue..........but could perhaps be bolstered significantly by other means as well.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Berta

[Berta]

I told Blue Water Navy right away and just got this from Commander Johns Wells:

"Just got off the phone with his partner Brian Hill and will work with them and probably file an amicus brief.

Commander J. B. Wells U. S. Navy (Retired)
Attorney at Law
Executive Director
Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc.
PO Box 5235
Slidell, LA 70469-5235
985-641-1855
985-649-1536 (fax) "

YIPPEE!!!!!!

If you watch Fox News Commander John Wells has been there many times re: VA issues.