Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • hohomepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • 27-year-anniversary-leaderboard.png

    advice-disclaimer.jpg

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

AO Thailand CAVC Precedent decision

Rate this question


Berta

Question

In Part:

“Since that time, the Court has issued a precedential decision in the case of Parseeya-Picchione v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 171 (2016).  In that decision, the Court noted that the appellant in that case had submitted evidence stating that "it would be the exception [rather] than the rule where a flight [from a base not in Southeast Asia to a base in Thailand] would bypass [Ton Son Nhut Air Base in Vietnam, where the veteran's alleged layover took place]."  The record also included an email from James S. Howard, an archivist from the Air Force Historical Research Agency, reporting that "[a]s a general rule, military cargo aircraft, especially those engaged in 'airlines' would stop over at Ton Son Nhut Air Base, Republic of Vietnam en[ ]route to bases in Thailand.  Very few of this sort of flight were made 'direct' to bases in Thailand from bases outside Southeast Asia."  The record also contained a letter from a retired Major Robert E. Copner, U.S. Air Force, asserting that "ased on my experience, it was common for military aircraft flying to and from airbases in Thailand to land at Ton Son Nhut [Air Base] and other Vietnam airbases."  Parseeya-Picchione, 28 Vet. App. at 176.

 

The Court's case in Parseeya-Picchione is directly relevant in the instant Veteran's appeal.  Most specifically, in a September 2008 statement, the Veteran wrote that he had a refueling stop at Ton Sun Nut Air Force Base (AFB) in Vietnam between September 20, 1969, and September 22, 1969.  In his VA application form, which had been filed one month prior, he marked the box "No" where asked if he served in Vietnam, but handwrote immediately next to this box "But flew into Vietnam to refuel."  In the narrative explanation portion of the application, he stated that the Continental Air Lines flight he flew on was on the ground in Vietnam for about 2 hours during which time everyone went into the terminal to wait. 

 

The Veteran's service personnel records show that he arrived in Thailand on September 22, 1969, after having been assigned to MacDill AFB in Florida.  Thus, the issue of Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam is reasonably raised.  “

The vet was awarded for some AO presumptives and remanded for some other stuff.

I could not find this here but posted it when it came out.

The CAVC decision makes sense.....there were Very few direct flights to Thailand during the Vietnam War.

I think a vet could easily assume that if they did fly into Thailand and back from Vietnam, that they might not realize one of the airport names that  they arrived at  

is in Vietnamese...aka Incountry Vietnam.

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp16/Files5/1638401.txt

 

 

 

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp16/Files5/1638401.txt

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 1
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

1 answer to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

I never understood why they Bark on veteran being exposed to A.O.  No matter how long they were boots on the ground...they still have breath the Air in Vietnam, 2 hour layover in Tan son Nhut Air Base in South Vietnam should expose him to the A.O.  walking from the plane to the terminal he has to breath and besides it only takes one foot on the ground.  With all his evidence/records ect,,ect,, and an officer as witness, I can't see how they would deny him.

 although seems like they sprayed A.O. More North  but the fact remains they sprayed it and the winds can sure shift to the south...but their saying he was not even exposed.

I understand if a veteran is boots on the ground anywhere in the RVN  he is consider Exposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use