Panama Canal Zone Bases Legacy Chemical Weapons Testing Mustard Gas, Phosgene, Sarin Nerve Gas, Agent Orange Safety Concerns Dod & Cercla

[Jumpmaster]

Berta

I posted an earlier reply to Samy104 reference additional BVA remands for Agent Orange, Pesticides Use Exposure for Soldiers that trained or were permanent party personnel at Canal Zone Bases. I know there must be others on Hadit that may know more and because they've not been diagnosed with any presumptive disease are not speaking out.

File #1 10 pages excerpts from Original document for AO use/unexploded ordinance related to chemical weapons testing Fort Sherman and Pina Range area on the Atlantic side also others may know about Empire Firing & Training Range on the Pacific Fort Kobbe, Clayton, Howard AFB, Rodman Marine Corps Barracks area. When veterans research as one cohesive unit together we may uncover vital pieces of evidence that VA, DOD & Service Branches hide and will never acknowledge that evidence exists. Jumpmaster.

Agent Orange Was Used In Panama-Veterans Have Sole Responsibility For Developing The Facts Proving Their Claim Because VA, DOD & Service Branches Do Not Obey Duty To Assist You Proving Chemical Exposure.pdf

SLPA_FIN_Panama_Caribbean_treasure (Agent Orange Used Fort Sherman, Gulick, Pina Range.pdf

[Jumpmaster]

Hello Ms. Berta and Happy Thanksgiving,

 I posted Panama Herbicide Exposure research in reply to questions from Maestro and Sammy104 dated May 10 and October 16 posts. 

The Hadit Forum is a great place to research all Rainbow Herbicides, TCDD, Silvex, Tordon 101, Dioxin and Toxins use outside Vietnam. It takes many years of due diligence, research, sorting through (unredacted) herbicide inventories, camouflaged shipping documents, to uncover evidence and chemical ingredients within rainbow herbicides, that strengthen your exposure claim or appeal.  The VA and JSRRC are  adversarial, corrupt, and veterans die from presumptive diseases, waiting for SC and their exposure evidence is discounted by email from VA Comp Services using blanket denials…herbicides are not dangerous to veterans, and does l not cause the presumptive diseases listed…your exposure never happened according to our official VA and DOD records, and by the way that IOM list is erroneous…LOL

Many veterans toss in the towel and give up because the VA and the JSRRC routinely lie, and interject the issue of “tactical” herbicides into debates when in reality, the phrase “tactical herbicides” merely has its origin in the “tactical deployment” of such herbicides during the Vietnam War.  For years, VA and JSRRC have colluded and made the mistake of developing for evidence of herbicide use by limiting its inclusion of “tactical herbicides” to Agent Orange.  In doing this, VA’s mistake is routinely failure to seek evidence of herbicide use that contains one or more of the listed “agents” at 38 CFR 3.307(a) (6).

VA has pulled the (rope-a-dope) on veterans and maneuvered in partnership with JSRRC and only sought evidence of Agent Orange.  However, the Army Supply Bulletin (SB 3-40 at 4) show that herbicide “Agent White” is “Picloram-Silvex Salt” otherwise known as “Tordon 101” aka “Agent White” ordered in a 55-gallon drum but the exact same herbicide could also be ordered in a 5-gallon drum by your grumpy unit Supply NCO and S3 staffers know that  VA’s refusal to acknowledge herbicide exposure based on assertions that certain exposures were only to “commercial” herbicides which is a smokescreen to discourage veterans from further appeal of adverse decisions with new material evidence.

BERTA SAID:  I have problems  with this statement. Can you give us the source of this:

"The presumption acts to lessen the evidentiary burden on a veteran filing a claim for compensation. In other words, the veteran does not need to provide evidence of specific exposure to Agent Orange if the VA has already accepted that the veteran is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange."

Yes, the Source comes from the PCZVA website including the following Q&A statement.

"Although thousands of veterans served in the Panama Canal Zone, the Department of Veterans Affairs does not recognize it as a place in which veterans were exposed to tactical herbicides such as Agent Orange.  Is that about to change?  Is there now sufficient evidence to convince VA that Agent Orange was sprayed in the Panama Canal Zone??

I don’t have the answer to the first question.  Frankly, I don’t know whether VA is ready to concede that Agent Orange was sprayed in the Panama Canal Zone.  I do believe that there is sufficient evidence to convince VA in individual cases that veterans have been exposed to Agent Orange in the Panama Canal Zone.  I’ll summarize and discuss the evidence for veterans who served in the Panama Canal Zone in future posts, but first, I want to explain a bit about Agent Orange and presumptive service connection for VA disability compensation."

- Sean Ravin

Review of your 13 hits reveals (WINNERS) SERVICE CONNECTED HERBICIDE EXPOSURE for three Panama Veterans highlight summary follows. ___________________________________________________________________________

REOPENED NEW EVIDENCE APPEAL GRANTED

 Citation Nr: 1606191      

Decision Date: 02/18/16    Archive Date: 03/01/16

DOCKET NO.  03-20 523 )       DATE

ORDER

 New and material evidence having been received, the claim of entitlement to service connection for asthmatic bronchitis, as a result of exposure to herbicides, is reopened, and the appeal is granted to this extent only.

 New and material evidence having been received, the claim of entitlement to service connection for uveitis of the right eye with increased ocular pressure and defective vision, as a result of exposure to herbicides, is reopened, and the appeal is granted to this extent only.

 New and material evidence having been received, the claim of entitlement to service connection for increased ocular pressure of the left eye with defective vision, as a result of exposure to herbicides, is reopened, and the appeal is granted to this extent only.

 REMAND

 At the time of its April 2009 remand as to the issues of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, a skin disability, and sarcoid arthritis, each as a result of exposure to herbicides, the Board directed the AOJ to complete specific development of the Veteran's claims to comply with the directives of the November 2008 Joint Motion. It is clear that the salient issue before the Board, as to all of the disabilities currently on appeal, is whether the Veteran was exposed during service to herbicides and/or other chemicals during service. This issue has been complicated by multiple entities serving as record keepers and multiple requests made by the AOJ for information made numerous times over the course of the appeal. However, the Board requires additional development prior to adjudicating the Veteran's claims.

 In summary, the Veteran asserts that he was exposed to herbicides and/or chemicals during active service in the Panama Canal Zone and during service with the Army National Guard in Fort Drum, New York. The Veteran's service personnel records reflect that he was stationed in the Canal Zone in Panama, with the Co A 4th Bn 10th Inf, Fort Davis, from March 26, 1967, to December 7, 1968. Special orders indicate that the Veteran, assigned to the HHC 4th Bn 10th Inf, was temporarily assigned to duty at Fort Clayton, Canal Zone, on February 2, 1968; and was temporarily assigned to support the Jungle Operations Course at Fort Sherman, Canal Zone, from April 6, 1968, to May 15, 1968, with Co C 4th Bn 10th Inf. The Veteran submitted a certificate of completion of training given at the 1031st USAR School in West Hartford, Connecticut, dated in May 1979. A retirement points capture document in his service personnel records indicates that the Veteran had a period of ACDUTRA, noted above, dated from May 26, 1979, to June 9, 1979, in the Army National Guard in Connecticut.

 To date, the AOJ, over the course of the appeal, obtained the Veteran's service treatment and personnel records from his period of active service dated from January 1967 to December 1968, and there is no indication that there are outstanding service records related to that period of service. The AOJ has also obtained service treatment and personnel records from the Veteran's Army National Guard service in Connecticut, including his separation orders, his service separation document, his personnel qualification record, and a retirement credits capture document, as well as his September 1978 National Guard service entrance medical examination and history reports.

 The records gathered, despite the AOJ's requests to the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), the Adjutant Generals in Mississippi and Connecticut, the Health Services, Medical Records Release, in Mississippi, and the Joint Force Headquarters, in Mississippi, are silent for evidence that the Veteran was assigned to any type of service in Fort Drum, New York, in 1979. The Board, in its April 2009 remand, directed the AOJ to seek outstanding records using alternative sources, using the information of record and any additional information the Veteran may provide.

 On remand, the AOJ should thus forward a NA Form 13055 to the Veteran in order to obtain any information that would be helpful in obtaining any outstanding service treatment and/or personnel records from his Army National Guard service in Connecticut, and conduct another search for such records based upon the Veteran's response. All requests should specifically seek records related to the location at which the Veteran was assigned during his period of ACDUTRA dated from May 26, 1979, to June 9, 1979, in the Army National Guard in Connecticut.

 Despite the AOJ's inquires over the course of the appeal, there is no evidence that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides during service in the Panama Canal Zone, and as discussed above, there is, as of yet, no evidence of any type of service in Fort Drum, New York, such that inquires as to any exposure in that location could be made. The Board, in its April 2009 remand, directed the AOJ to use official channels, such as the NPRC and the service department, to ascertain whether any unit to which the Veteran was assigned during his active service, including any ACDUTRA or inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA), was exposed to a herbicide agent, such as Agent Orange, and directed the AOJ to attempt to verify the Veteran's exposure to chemicals at Fort Drum, New York, during training in May 1979. The Veteran did not respond to the AOJ's March 2010 and May 2013 requests as to his alleged exposure and the AOJ, in Formal Findings dated in November 2013, March 2014, and April 2014, determined that sufficient information required to verify exposure to herbicides did not exist.

 On remand, the AOJ should provide the Veteran a final opportunity to describe his alleged exposure to herbicides and/or other chemicals during service, including in the Panama Canal Zone and at Fort Drum, New York. As noted above, the Veteran did not respond to the AOJ's March 2010 and May 2013 requests. The Veteran has submitted an April 2014 statement from a fellow service member reporting that on or about November 1, 1966, he was stationed in the Panama Canal Zone, specifically, Fort Davis and Fort Sherman. He reported that the Army tested herbicides, Agent Orange, and other chemicals there, and that he saw the use of Agent Orange, fire, and a bulldozer to clear foliage for a jump site and to manage the jungles, generally, at Fort Sherman. He asserted that the chemicals had to be strong, Agent Orange and other chemicals, in order to clear the foliage in Panama.

 Even if the Veteran does not respond to the AOJ's inquires as to the specifics of his in-service exposure to herbicides and/or other chemicals, the AOJ should request verification from the United States Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), using the information already of record, as to whether any unit to which the Veteran was assigned in the Panama Canal Zone and at Fort Drum, New York, was exposed to herbicides and/or other chemicals during any type of active service, and if any Army National Guard members from Connecticut were sent to Fort Drum, New York, from May 26, 1979, to June 9, 1979.

 Whether or not, if as a result of this remand, the AOJ is able to place the Veteran at Fort Drum, New York, from May 26, 1979, to June 9, 1979, and confirm that he was exposed to herbicides and/or other chemicals there, and/or confirm that he was exposed to the same during active service in the Panama Canal Zone, additional development is required in order the adjudicate the service connection claims on appeal. In short, the Veteran's updated VA and private treatment records should be obtained and associated with the claims file and he should be afforded VA examinations to determine the etiology of the disabilities claimed, outside of any disabilities presumed related to exposure to herbicides.

 In this regard, the Board notes that the Veteran asserts that all of the disabilities on appeal are related to in-service exposure to tactical herbicides, Agent Orange, and/or other chemicals. He has also asserted that his claimed PTSD is related to training troops that were going to the Republic of Vietnam during his service in the Panama Canal Zone. He also asserts that he experienced the beginning of his skin disability during active service. On his January 1976 service entrance report of medical history, the Veteran reported that he wore glasses. His service treatment records dated in February 1967 indicate that he complained of swollen feet, and in October 1967, he complained of left wrist weakness. In February 1968, he complained of chest pain over the sternum, and in June 1968 he complained of an injury to the left ankle and also complained of arthritis in the knees and ankles. On his service separation medical examination in November 1968, he presented with circular old scars of the bilateral legs.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

A WINNER!!!!....HERBICIDE EXPOSURE IN PANAMA SERVICE CONNECTION GRANTED

Citation Nr: 1544458      Decision Date: 10/19/15    Archive Date: 10/29/15

DOCKET NO.  10-29 096 )       DATE

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio

 THE ISSUES

 1.  Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as due to herbicide exposure.

 2.  Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II.

 3.  Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II.

 4.  Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II.

 5.  Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II.

 6.  Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II.

 7.  Entitlement to service connection for nephropathy, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II.

 8.  Entitlement to service connection for bilateral optic nerve damage and retinal folds in both eyes, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II. 

 REPRESENTATION

 Veteran represented by: Sean A. Ravin, Attorney

 WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

 Veteran and Veterans Service Officer

 ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

 Journet Shaw, Associate Counsel

 INTRODUCTION

 The Veteran served on active duty from September 1966 to September 1968.

 This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2008 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California.  The case has since been returned to the RO in Cleveland, Ohio.

 The Veteran and a Veterans Service Officer testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a March 2012 Travel Board hearing.  A transcript of this hearing is of record.  In February 2015, the Veteran was notified that the VLJ who held his March 2012 Board hearing was no longer employed by the Board.  The Veteran did not respond to a request for another hearing.  38 C.F.R. § 20.717 (2014).

 In December 2012, the Board denied service connection for the issues on appeal.  The Veteran appealed the Board's December 2012 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).  In a March 2014 memorandum decision, the Court vacated the Board's December 2012 denial of service connection for all of the issues on appeal and remanded the case for readjudication consistent with the decision.  

 In addition to the paper claims file, there are Virtual VA and Veterans Benefit Management System (VBMS) paperless claims files associated with the Veteran's appeal.  A review of the Virtual VA and VBMS claims files do not reveal any additional evidence pertinent to the present appeal.  The Board also notes that there appear to be additional issues not yet certified to the Board.  

 The issues of entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II; entitlement to service connection for nephropathy, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II; and entitlement to service connection for bilateral optic nerve damage and retinal folds in both eyes, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II, are addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision below and are REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

 FINDINGS OF FACT

 1.  The evidence is at least in equipoise that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides while serving in the Panama Canal Zone.  

 2.  The Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II is presumptively related to his exposure to herbicides.

 3.  The Veteran was diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy of the left and right upper extremities.

 4.  The Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity is a complication of his diabetes mellitus, type II.

 5.  The Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity is a complication of his diabetes mellitus, type II.

 5.  The Veteran was diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy of the left and right lower extremities.

 6.  The Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity is a complication of his diabetes mellitus, type II.

 7.  The Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity is a complication of his diabetes mellitus, type II.

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 1.  The criteria to establish service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1131, 1137, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2014).

 2.  The criteria to establish service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II, have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310 (2014).

 3.  The criteria to establish service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II, have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310 (2014).

 4.  The criteria to establish service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II, have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310 (2014).

 5.  The criteria to establish service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II, have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310 (2014).

 REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

 The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) describes VA's duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2014).

 Given the Board's favorable decision in granting service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, peripheral neuropathy of the left and right upper extremities, and peripheral neuropathy of the left and right lower extremities, the Board finds that all notification and development actions needed to fairly adjudicate the appeal have been accomplished.

 Service Connection Granted

 This case a somewhat long and detailed procedural history, which the Board will not belabor.  However, the Board apologizes for the delay here at the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which this Board Member finds was unfortunate, at best.  In any event, based upon a careful review of all of the evidence of record, which is extensive, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise that this Veteran was exposed to herbicides while serving in the Panama Canal Zone.  Based on this Veteran's MOS, his credible lay testimony, and othe other evidence of record the Board concludes that this Veteran's duties regularly transporting supplies and troops into the jungle exposed him to herbicides.  See Hudgens v. Gibson, 26 Vet. App. 558, 563 (2014) fn 5,

 ORDER

 Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, is granted.

 Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity is granted.

 Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity is granted.

 Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity is granted.

 Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity is granted.

 ____________________________________________________________________________________________

Joint Motion Remand Decision FROM 2004

Citation Nr: 0913325      

Decision Date: 04/09/09    Archive Date: 04/21/09

DOCKET NO.  03-20 523 )       DATE

On appeal from the

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson, 

Mississippi

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus 

type II, as a result of exposure to the herbicide Agent 

Orange.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, 

as a result of exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for sarcoid arthritis 

(claimed as a disability of the bones and muscles), as a 

result of exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:        Sean A. Ravin, Attorney at Law

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

C. Eckart, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from January 1967 to 

December 1968.  Available service personnel records further 
reflect that the Veteran had service in 1979, and the Veteran 

has averred he served in the Reserves.  This service has not 

been verified, and the National Personnel Records Center 

(NPRC) has indicated that he served no active duty for training (ACTDTRA).

This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals 

(Board) from a rating decision rendered in May 2002 by the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in 

Jackson, Mississippi.

In August 2004, the Board remanded this matter for additional 

development.  Thereafter, the case was returned to the Board 

for further consideration.  In August 2007, the Board denied 

the claims.  The Veteran appealed this decision to the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), which in 

November 2008 granted a Joint Motion for Remand, and remanded 

it to the Board to address due process and evidentiary 

deficiencies.

The Board in August 2004 and again in August 2007 also 

referred claims of service connection for extreme mental 

anguish, anxiety, and nightmares, shortness of breath, 

constant stinging in the chest, respiratory cancers, 

Hodgkin's disease, and high blood pressure to the RO for 

appropriate action.  Such matters remain pending and are 

again referred to the RO for appropriate action.  

The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction 

(AOJ) via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, 

DC.  VA will notify the appellant if further action is 

required.

REMAND

 As pointed out in the Joint Motion, further development is 

necessary to ensure compliance with the Board's August 2004 

remand.  Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).  

Specifically, it was pointed out that the Board failed to 

comply with the previous remand by failing to conduct a 

thorough and exhaustive search for the Veteran's service 

records.  

 The history as noted by the previous remand, included his 

allegations of being exposed to Agent Orange while in 

training at Fort Drum, NY in 1979.  In support of this 

allegation, he has submitted a certificate of completion of 

126 hours of training, dated in May 1979.  He also alleged 

exposure to Agent Orange while stationed on active duty in 

Panama.  Service treatment records reflect that the Veteran 

was stationed in the Canal Zone in 1967.  The Veteran has 

submitted numerous articles from websites and other 

publications which present various theories to confirm the 

use or presence of Agent Orange and other chemicals in 

Panama. 

The Joint Motion pointed out that the Board's remand directives in regards to obtaining records through the 

National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) and the service 

department were not fully followed.  It was pointed out that 

in a March 2005 letter the Adjutant General's Office of the 

Department of the Army and Air Force informed the VA that it 

could not locate any records for the Veteran and advised the 

VA to contact the records from the Army/Air Reserve Personnel 

Center in St. Louis, Missouri. 
 _________________________________________________________________________________________

Citation Nr: 1236710      

Decision Date: 10/23/12    Archive Date: 11/05/12

 DOCKET NO.  05-33 561 )       DATE

     On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas

 THE ISSUES

 1.  Entitlement to service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus, to include as secondary to herbicide exposure.

 2.  Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as secondary to herbicide exposure.

 3.  Entitlement to service connection for impotence, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus.

 4.  Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of both upper and both lower extremities, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus.

 REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:        Sean Kendall, Attorney at Law

 ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

 A. Barone, Counsel

 INTRODUCTION

 The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from June 1973 to June 1975.  These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).  They were originally before the Board on appeal from a September 2004 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas.  In September 2010, the Board upheld the RO's September 2004 denial of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, impotence, and peripheral neuropathies.  The Veteran appealed that decision to the Court.  In May 2012, the Court issued an order that vacated the September 2010 Board decision and remanded the matters on appeal for readjudication consistent with the instructions outlined in an April 2012 Joint Motion for An Order Vacating and Remanding The Board Decision on Appeal (Joint Motion) by the parties.

 The Board's September 2010 decision also included the additional issues of (1) entitlement to service connection for depression and (2) whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of service connection for a heart disorder, claimed as coronary artery disease (CAD).  These two issues were remanded by the Board to the RO for additional development; they were not part of the appeal to the Court.  The Board notes that the RO has not re-certified these two issues to the Board following the September 2010 remand.  38 C.F.R. § 19.35 (2011) specifically provides that certification is for administrative purposes and does not serve to either confer or deprive the Board of jurisdiction of an issue.  It is the Board's responsibility to determine its own jurisdiction.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.203 (2011).

 The Board has determined that it is not appropriate to at this time take jurisdiction over these issues which the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has not re-certified to the Board.  Although the AOJ has taken steps towards completing the development directed by the Board, the issues do not appear to be fully prepared for appellate review.  The AOJ has not issued a new supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) to readjudicate the remanded issues following the completion of additional development (the Board has reviewed both the physical claims file and the "Virtual VA" electronic claims file in this regard).  

 The appeal is REMANDED to the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office.  VA will notify the appellant if further action on his part is required.

 REMAND

 In a decision issued in September 2010, the Board denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, impotence, and peripheral neuropathy of both upper and both lower extremities.  In May 2012, the Court endorsed a Joint Motion that determined that the Board did not ensure that VA adequately assisted the Veteran in attempting to obtain evidence necessary to substantiate his claim, and that the Board did not provide an adequate statement of reasons and bases for denying the Veteran's claims.  The Joint Motion explained that VA should attempt to obtain the Veteran's service personnel records (SPRs) and must take further steps to develop evidence of the Veteran's alleged exposure to Agent Orange.

 The Joint Motion found that because the Veteran has provided evidence of his service in Panama in the early 1970s, as well as "speculative" evidence of the use of Agent Orange in Panama in the early 1970s, "it is possible that obtaining [the Veteran's] SPRs would aid in supporting his claim."  The Joint Motion instructs that "the Board should ensure that the Agency contacts the appropriate service department in an attempt to obtain [the Veteran's] SPRs."

 The Joint Motion also found that the Board did not discuss the VA Adjudication Procedures Manual (M21-1 or M21-1MR) provision pertaining to developing claims based on Agent Orange exposure, other than in Vietnam or certain parts of Korea.  The Veteran's service connection claims addressed at this time all arise from his contention that he has type II diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer as a result of exposure to herbicides during service in Panama.  Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e) if he is shown to have been exposed to herbicides/Agent Orange in service, his type II diabetes and prostate cancer may be presumed to be service connected.  Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6), the presumption of exposure to Agent Orange in service applies only to Veterans who served in Vietnam.  However, it has been acknowledged that the military used Agent Orange in locales other than Vietnam.

As discussed by the Joint Motion, VA has developed specific evidentiary procedures to verify whether a Veteran was exposed to herbicides in locations other than Vietnam.  M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section C, para. 10(0), provides that if a Veteran alleges Agent Orange exposure in locations other than Vietnam, certain parts of Korea, or Thailand, the RO should ask the Veteran for the approximate dates, location, and nature of the alleged exposure.  If this information is not received from the Veteran within 30 days, the RO should refer the case to the Joint Services Records Research Center [JSRRC] coordinator to make a formal finding that sufficient information required to verify herbicide exposure does not exist.  Id.  If the RO does receive the information, it should furnish the Veteran's detailed description of exposure to Compensation Service and request a review of DoD's inventory of herbicide operations to determine whether herbicides were used as alleged.  Id.

 The Joint Motion directed that the Board should ensure that the Veteran's claims are properly developed in accordance with those provisions of the VA Adjudication Procedures Manual pertinent to the case.

 It does not appear that the evidentiary development procedures required when there is an allegation of exposure to Agent Orange in a location such as Panama have been followed.  The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has consistently held that evidentiary development procedures provided in the Adjudication Procedure Manual are binding.  See Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272, 282 (1999) (the Board failed to comply with the duty-to-assist requirement when it failed to remand the case for compliance with the evidentiary development called for by M21-1).  As the allegation of herbicide exposure in Panama cannot be resolved based on the current record, further development of pertinent evidence is necessary.

 The Veteran's claims of service connection for impotence and for peripheral neuropathy of both upper and both lower extremities feature theories of entitlement that these disabilities are secondary to diabetes mellitus or possibly prostate cancer.  The impotence and peripheral neuropathy claims are therefore inextricably intertwined with the claims of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer (the secondary service connection aspect of the claims cannot be properly addressed until the matters of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer are resolved).  Accordingly, consideration of the claims of service connection for impotence and peripheral neuropathy of both upper and both lower extremities must be deferred until the matters of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer are decided.  See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (where a claim is inextricably intertwined with another claim, the claims must be adjudicated together).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  The RO should obtain for the record copies of the Veteran's complete service personnel records.  If they cannot be located, the RO should ask the Veteran to provide copies of all personnel records he has in his possession.

 2.  The RO should ask the Veteran for the approximate dates, location, and nature of his alleged exposure to Agent Orange or other pertinent herbicides in Panama.  After he responds, the RO shall determine whether the information he supplied is sufficient to adjudicate the claim (i.e. seek verification of the alleged exposure).  If so, the RO should request from the C&P Service a review of the inventory of herbicide operations maintained by the Department of Defense (DOD) to determine whether herbicides were used or tested as alleged by the Veteran.  If the exposure is not verified by the request to C&P, verification should be sought from JSRRC.  The RO should forward a list of the Veteran's service dates and duty locations as well his contentions regarding the nature of his exposure to herbicides in service to JSRRC and request verification of his exposure to herbicides.  The results of this development should be outlined in a memorandum for the record.

 If the information is insufficient, or if the Veteran does not timely respond regarding his alleged exposure, the RO forward the case to a JSRRC coordinator for a formal finding that the information provided is insufficient to verify the Veteran's exposure to herbicides in service.

 3.  The RO should then readjudicate the Veteran's claims of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer (to specifically encompass the herbicide exposure the Veteran has alleged).  The adjudication process must include a specific finding of whether or not the Veteran's allegations of herbicide exposure are verified.  If service connection for type II diabetes or for prostate cancer is granted, the RO should arrange for any further development indicated (e.g., a nexus opinion) as to the secondary service connection theories of entitlement.  The RO should then also readjudicate the matters of service connection for impotence and peripheral neuropathy of both upper and both lower extremities, to encompass as secondary to diabetes or prostate cancer.  If any claim remains denied, the RO should issue an appropriate SSOC and afford the Veteran and his attorney the opportunity to respond.  The case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, for further review.

 The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded.  Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).  These claims must be afforded expeditious treatment.  The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.  See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2011).

 _________________________________________________

George R. Senyk

Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

 Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2011).

[Berta]

I went over the first two BVA citations:

The first BVA decision,

“ORDER

 

New and material evidence having been received, the claim of entitlement to service connection for asthmatic bronchitis, as a result of exposure to herbicides, is reopened, and the appeal is granted to this extent only.

 

New and material evidence having been received, the claim of entitlement to service connection for uveitis of the right eye with increased ocular pressure and defective vision, as a result of exposure to herbicides, is reopened, and the appeal is granted to this extent only.

 

New and material evidence having been received, the claim of entitlement to service connection for increased ocular pressure of the left eye with defective vision, as a result of exposure to herbicides, is reopened, and the appeal is granted to this extent only.”

https://www.va.gov/vetapp16/files1/1606191.txt

This is not an award for an AO disability.

Possibly the case, by now might have been awarded on Remand.

 

The second citation is in fact an award. This is GREAT!

“The evidence is at least in equipoise that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides while serving in the Panama Canal Zone. “

 

Also the BVA states:
“This case a somewhat long and detailed procedural history, which the Board will not belabor.  However, the Board apologizes for the delay here at the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which this Board Member finds was unfortunate, at best.  In any event, based upon a careful review of all of the evidence of record, which is extensive, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise that this Veteran was exposed to herbicides while serving in the Panama Canal Zone.  Based on this Veteran's MOS, his credible lay testimony, and othe other evidence of record the Board concludes that this Veteran's duties regularly transporting supplies and troops into the jungle exposed him to herbicides.  See Hudgens v. Gibson, 26 Vet. App. 558, 563 (2014) fn 5,”

https://www.va.gov/vetapp15/files5/1544458.txt

The veteran had proven his MOS and duties put him into  direct contact with AO.

This is a great find!

However, have you ever contacted Sean Ravin for any details on when and where his MOS specifically put him into the contact while  transporting the heribicides? Or even his Unit, when he was exposed?

If you know of any veteran in his same unit, same MOS, same time and Place –Panama-I don’t know how the VA could deny their AO claim- but then again---there is more to this award then we know –“other evidence of record”, as the BVA stated.

That is an important consideration.

I say that because I had one case at the BVA,which was awarded, but the BVA mentioned only a 

small part of my evidence in their decisions and I felt that if they had mentioned much more of it, it could have helped other survivors or even other veterans, with AO DMII.

Also my daughter is a vet and helped 4 or 5 vets prove their claims.They had all been in the same unit, same time, same place, but only one had gotten a SC award. This vet gave copies of his award to the other men involved and the VA awarded them all. 

My daughter’s help involved translating a document in Vietnamese, they thought was a hit list in Vietnam when they found it- it had their names and even their SSA #s on it.

It was a Citation for bravery  from a Vietnamese General and they all got addition awards for saving lives in a fierce fire fight.

My point is that these vets had sought each other out after the war and buddy statements can go a long way in proving where and when and what happened- as eye witness accounts.

The internet has unit web sites for just about every unit you can think of, and many have found buddys that way, in re- union rosters or site forums r even by just googling the names of those they served with.

You have done a lot of work on this issue and persistence pays off....

Ravin might even know the results of any of the Panama claims under remand....When an RO awards a remanded claim ( and that does happen from time to time) unfortunately no one knows it unless they mention it at hadit or maybe at VBN.

BVA decisions are public but still we never really know the outcome of their many remanded claims.

I would think any attorney on the remand decision would know if they succeeded on remand.

 

 

 

 

[Robert H]

I was at fort clayton from 1971-1972 in the 4/20. when I came home I had a skin rash that just keeps getting worse. I have shown many doctors in the past years and none can cure it. I went to a doctor about a month ago and he did a biopsie and sent it to the Mayo clinic. He just called and said they are having a hard time finding out what it is. Has anyone had this  before? 

[Albert O.Castro Jr.]

On 3/10/2020 at 4:17 PM, Robert H said:

I was at fort clayton from 1971-1972 in the 4/20. when I came home I had a skin rash that just keeps getting worse. I have shown many doctors in the past years and none can cure it. I went to a doctor about a month ago and he did a biopsie and sent it to the Mayo clinic. He just called and said they are having a hard time finding out what it is. Has anyone had this  before? 

 

[Albert O.Castro Jr.]

I was stationed at Fort Davis from Jan. 15th, 1978 to Feb. 5th, 1981. 
I was at exposed to AO at Ft. Sherman first few days in country. Been sick ever since. Several abdominal surgeries in the removal of Cystic Masses all benign thank God. However; I too have that same skin rash - was sent to to Pinnacle in Odessa TX behind the VA Wilson & Young Clinic - and my Dr. Still says he has no report . What are they hiding ?

[Riplip]

I went to Jungle Training at Ft. Sherman. That was only 5 weeks so I probably aren't involved with this. I remember getting a rash in the jungle and have had to get ointment ever since during the humid months . I was denied because my medical records have always been lost. Always thought that was some cool training down there. Not so cool if we were all exposed.