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

[broncovet]

Maybe this will help:

here are 440 BVA decisions under a search for Agent Orange Panama,but the earches can be narrowed down- it takes time but I found these in mere minutes.

 

 

 

 

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files10/A21016822.txt

 

This is a recent BVA decision.

 

The veteran was able to prove that her disability of aplastic anemia and myelodysplastic syndrome ( not an AO presumptive)

as due to her exposure to herbicides in Panama.

 

 

 

"She was provided a VA examination, in November 2019.  That examiner only considered whether her aplastic anemia was related to symptoms of an upper respiratory infection she had during her service, and found it less likely.  He did not consider whether it was related to herbicide exposure.  

She submitted a private medical opinion from her treating oncologist.  In a March 2021 letter, he indicated first treating the Veteran in 1997, and asking her then if she had been exposed to any chemicals in her work.  She was not at that time aware of the impact of herbicides, and did not report it until more recently.  He reviewed the evidence she had located regarding herbicides in Panama, and opined that it was likely her aplastic anemia and myelodysplastic syndrome originated with her exposures to herbicides.  He noted her reports that it came into her room and therefore got into her clothing, and that it was sprayed and pulled into her working area.  He noted the export reports regarding shipments of herbicide to Panama, and cited medical studies relating Agent Orange to myelodysplastic syndrome.  He noted that it was impossible to determine the definite cause of her disabilities, but that it was highly probable that it was due to extensive herbicide exposure.  

Based on this evidence, the Board finds that service connection is warranted to aplastic anemia and myelodysplastic syndrome.  The VA examiner did not address this exposure, but the Board finds the Veteran's doctor has provided sufficient explanation for his opinion that the Veteran's diagnoses are related to her service.

 

Accordingly, this claim is granted."

In this next  recent decision the veterans proved he had peripheral neuropathy due to his AO exposure in Panama:

https://www.va.gov/vetapp22/Files7/22045874.txt

Peripheral Neuropathy IS a AO presumptive but VERY difficult to prove as Direct SC, as it usually stems from other SCs to include diabetes mellitus, and if the DM is SC, it can be rated as secondary.

"Regarding the Veteran's contention that he was exposed to herbicide agents in service, the Board finds that the evidence is at least evenly balanced that the Veteran was exposed to chemicals during his service in the Panama Canal Zone, to include insecticides and pesticides.  Military personnel records reflect that the Veteran served in the Panama Canal Zone during his active duty service.  Furthermore, there is nothing to explicitly contradict his reports of exposure to chemicals, to include insecticides and pesticides, and his reports, as well as the lay statements of record, are consistent with the evidence of record and the circumstances of his service.  Moreover, the June 1997 DoD memorandum indicated that there were no records of chemical defoliants used in Panama only because pesticide applicators were required to maintain records of application of restricted-use pesticides for only two years.  Thus, the Veteran's reports of exposure to chemicals, to include insecticides and pesticides, are credible, and the Veteran meets the in-service injury or disease requirement.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (each disabling condition for which a Veteran seeks service connection must be considered on the basis of the places, types, and circumstances of his service, as shown by the evidence); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (the benefit of the doubt doctrine applies to any point within a claim as well as its ultimate disposition). 

The remaining question is therefore whether a nexus exists between the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy disabilities and exposure to chemicals in service, to include insecticides and pesticides.  In this regard, the Veteran has testified that he has experienced bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy symptoms since separation from service.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (a veteran is competent to testify regarding continuous pain since service, and lay evidence, when credible, is competent to establish the presence of continuous symptoms for a claimed disability during and since separation from military service); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (holding lay evidence concerning continuity of symptoms after service, if credible, is ultimately competent, regardless of the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence).  While the September 2017 and February 2021 VA physicians indicated that the Veteran reported that he experienced bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy symptoms since the 1990s, the Veteran refuted that finding in a November 2020 statement reporting that he experienced the peripheral neuropathy symptoms within six months of separating from service.  Thus, given the Veteran's November 2020 rebuttal and his other statements throughout the appeal period that he has experienced peripheral neuropathy symptoms since separation from service, the Board finds his statements of continuous symptoms credible and competent.  

Moreover, the September 2017 and February 2021 VA opinions are inadequate as they did not consider the Veteran's competent and credible statements of his continuous peripheral neuropathy symptoms since the 1970s.  Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1336, n. 1 (VA's examiner's opinion, which relied on the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence, "failed to consider whether the lay statements presented sufficient evidence of the etiology of [the veteran's] disability such that his claim for service connection could be proven without contemporaneous medical evidence").

To the extent that the grants of service connection for the disabilities are based primarily on lay evidence, "nothing in the regulatory or statutory provisions [relating to evidence to be considered] require both medical and competent lay evidence; rather, they make clear that competent lay evidence can be sufficient in and of itself."  Id. at 1335.        

At this point, the Board could remand the claims for VA opinions.  However, a request for opinions could be construed as obtaining additional evidence for the sole purpose of denying the claims, which is impermissible.  38 C.F.R. § 3.304(c) ("The development of evidence in connection with claims for service connection will be accomplished when deemed necessary but it should not be undertaken when evidence present is sufficient for this determination"); Andrews v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 216, 225 (2021) ("Remand is inappropriate where the predominant purpose is not to allow the Board to make a fully informed decision unencumbered by error but to allow VA to obtain more evidence so that it can properly deny the claim").        

For the foregoing reasons, the evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy are related to active duty service.  As the reasonable doubt created by this relative equipoise in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, entitlement to service connection for bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is warranted.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. "  

Could you posts these decision at hadit for the Panama vets? 

They have to be read carefully- but

These vets  must NEVER give up!