Jump to content
VA Disability Claims Community Forums - HadIt.com Veterans
  • veterans-crisis-line.jpg
    The Veterans Crisis Line can help even if you’re not enrolled in VA benefits or health care.

    CHAT NOW

  • question-001.jpeg

    Have Questions? Get Answers.

    Tips on posting on the forums.

    1. Post a clear title like ‘Need help preparing PTSD claim’ or “VA med center won’t schedule my surgery instead of ‘I have a question.
       
    2. Knowledgeable people who don’t have time to read all posts may skip yours if your need isn’t clear in the title.
      I don’t read all posts every login and will gravitate towards those I have more info on.
       
    3. Use paragraphs instead of one massive, rambling introduction or story.
       
      Again – You want to make it easy for others to help. If your question is buried in a monster paragraph, there are fewer who will investigate to dig it out.
     
    Leading too:

    exclamation-point.pngPost straightforward questions and then post background information.
     
     
    Examples:
     
    • Question A. I was previously denied for apnea – Should I refile a claim?
      • Adding Background information in your post will help members understand what information you are looking for so they can assist you in finding it.
    Rephrase the question: I was diagnosed with apnea in service and received a CPAP machine, but the claim was denied in 2008. Should I refile?
     
    • Question B. I may have PTSD- how can I be sure?
      • See how the details below give us a better understanding of what you’re claiming.
    Rephrase the question: I was involved in a traumatic incident on base in 1974 and have had nightmares ever since, but I did not go to mental health while enlisted. How can I get help?
     
    This gives members a starting point to ask clarifying questions like “Can you post the Reasons for Denial of your claim?”
     
    Note:
     
    • Your first posts on the board may be delayed before they appear as they are reviewed. This process does not take long.
    • Your first posts on the board may be delayed before they appear as they are reviewed. The review requirement will usually be removed by the 6th post. However, we reserve the right to keep anyone on moderator preview.
    • This process allows us to remove spam and other junk posts before hitting the board. We want to keep the focus on VA Claims, and this helps us do that.
  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   

    tinnitus-005.pngptsd-005.pnglumbosacral-005.pngscars-005.pnglimitation-flexion-knee-005.pngdiabetes-005.pnglimitation-motion-ankle-005.pngparalysis-005.pngdegenerative-arthitis-spine-005.pngtbi-traumatic-brain-injury-005.png

  • VA Watchdog

  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons … Continue reading

  • 0

New And Improved


Stretch

Question

  • In Memoriam

There is no way that the Sec. of VA, can legally put a hold on AO Blue-Water Vet claims. The VA has resorted to new tactics in this AO Blue-Water Veteran claims.

This is my most recent letter, from the VA for information, that is holding-up and stalling my claims.

This was a request, from my Congressman Boozman, for information from the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations FOIA). Both Ships histories were sent over a year ago.

These ships histories were scanned into FOIA Fayetteville over a year ago.

I have personally copied and sent these ships histories over a year ago via snail mail also.

I will re-fax these ships histories from my congressman's office Tuesday 1/2/07.

Remember, that Veterans are not allowed to submit redundant information within their claims, if it is to the Veterans benefit.

Did somebody ask why Veteran's need lawyers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 13
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

13 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • HadIt.com Elder

The Agent Orange Blue water claims issue has nothing to do with your claim. Your claim has to do with possible exposure to hazerdous material from SHAD, more specifically project 112 that occurred in the 1960's and 1970's. The two are completely seperate from one another in regards to evidence needed.

I suspect until either the two ships that you were on are added to the list of ships that took part in SHAD, you can actually prove the USS Ranger and the USS Saratoga were exposed to the known hazards of project 112, and/or you are on the list of over 5,000 crew members that took part in the test, you are probably not going to win service-connection wth VA. It sounds like your beef should be with the DoD, more specifically the Navy, and not VA.

Vike 17

Edited by Vike17 (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • In Memoriam

Vike,

Yes, Project 112/SHAD is one of the issues on my claims. We are working on it now. We have made significant progress. I hope you will understand how significant the progress is soon.

I guess you haven't read anything that I have posted in the past, so I will try to get you up-to-date. You must be a VSO, to make a snap-decision, prior to investigation. I am trying to hold us together, and not apart.

I have several claims in for AO. These AO claims are currently filed under Haas vs. Nicholson 6/18/06 with the current NOD (Notice of Disagreement). The AO claims were previously denied by the VA, and originally filed years ago and not even followed by VSO, whom I fired two years ago (DAV Los Angeles). I moved to another state.

Over a year ago, I went into the AO registry, with all of the test, labs, blood work, and etc. The head of my VAMC, stated that Yes, these relevant AO related issues were detected, in a letter to me. My claims have already been to the BVA, remanded, back through the AMC, and finally to the DRO again, who was holding up my claims for the honorable Secretary Nicholson's, Circuit Court Haas vs. Nicholson hold Letter, that I posted in an earlier post.

We griped so much about the illegality of both the hold and the original interpretation of AO exposure, to include both Blue-Water and other VSM Vets, that the hold seems to have been dropped. Now other, regular stall issues, have to be brought into replace the AO Haas vs. Nicholson Hold.

In my particular case, the VA is claiming that they need my ships histories (Ships Logs) again, before they can proceed any further with my claims at the DRO.

Now, that you are up to date you can read the documents that I have presented here and better understand why I am angry at redundant VA request for information that they already have several copies of, for an excuse of delay.

I appreciate your knowledge Vike, and in no way am I trying to be rude. This is why I read the mail (That is--that I try to follow current veterans situations closely).

Some very interesting articles @ VAwatchdog.org, that I have read recently.

Hey check out The Independent Budget Critical Issues Report On Fiscal Year 2008.

http://www.vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfJAN07/nf010107-1.htm

Also this new DoD and VA cartoon training film.

http://www.vawatchdog.org/nfDEC06/nf123006-3.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

I remember bits and pieces of your claim from the old message board. However, I can't remember in detail what all of your claims are. I was just making reference to the fact that, if you're claiming conditions that arose from possible exposure from the SHAD/project 112 experiments, these would not normally pretain to the presumptive AO criteria. As you know SHAD/project 112 occurred in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans from the mid 1960's to the mid 1970's and have nothing to do with the AO presumption in Vietnam! Even though you may have been exposed to similar chemical and other substances, these do not by current law fall under the same criteria for service-connection as does the AO presumption.

You only keep stating that you have "I have several claims in for AO. These AO claims are currently filed under Haas vs. Nicholson" If you did not serve in Vietnam or off the coastal waters of Vietnam, then Haas -v- Nicholson has no real precedence in your case, and therefore, the evidence required to grant your claim for exposure to hazordous matrial in conjunction with SHAD/Project 112 is totally different.

Haas -v- Nicholoson states;

"After consideration of the appellant's and the Secretary's briefs, oral argument as presented on January 10, 2006, and a review of the record on appeal, the Court finds that VA's regulation defining "service in the Republic of Vietnam," 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii), is permissible pursuant to Chevron; however, the regulation is ambiguous. VA's argued interpretation of the regulatory term "service in the Republic of Vietnam," affording the application of the presumption of exposure to herbicides only to Vietnam-era veterans who set foot on land and not to the appellant, is inconsistent with longstanding agency views, plainly erroneous in light of legislative and regulatory history, and unreasonable, and must be SET ASIDE. In this case, the M21-1 provision allowing for the application of the presumption of exposure to herbicides based on the receipt of the VSM controls. The February 2004 Board decision, therefore, is REVERSED to the extent that the Board denied the appellant the presumption of exposure to herbicides and the matter is REMANDED with instructions to apply the presumption in a manner consistent with the interpretation set forth in this opinion. If service connection for diabetes mellitus is awarded upon remand, VA should ensure appropriate processing of the appellant's claims for secondary service connection for peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy, claimed as residuals of diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, M21-1, part III, paragraph 4.24(e), change 88 (Feb. 27, 2002), is SET ASIDE pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(D).

1. See NavSource Online: Service Ship Photo Archive, AE-16 Mount Katmai, at http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/0516.htm (last visited Aug. 10, 2006) (noting the length of the U.S.S. Mount Katmai as 459 feet).

2. The Court notes that in our recent decision in Pratt v. Nicholson , __ Vet.App. __, __, No. 04-0451, slip op. at 5 (Aug. 11, 2006), we held that the plain language of the phrase "in the Republic of Vietnam," as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1831(2), was sufficiently clear to resolve the question presented. Accordingly, we rejected the appellant's claim that the veteran's service in the San Diego, California, area qualified the appellant for benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1805. Id. Our conclusion in this case that the statutory language is ambiguous as to service in the waters off the coast of Vietnam is not in conflict with Pratt. Rather, these two cases illustrate the principle that statutory ambiguity is not an absolute conclusion, but is a case-by-case determination as to whether the language answers the particular question presented. Hence, statutory language that plainly answers one question may still be ambiguous when applied to another.

3. In 1954, pursuant to the Geneva Agreement on Vietnam, the country was temporarily partitioned into North and South Vietnam at the 17th parallel; the northern part was referred to as the "Democratic Republic of Vietnam," with its capital in Hanoi, and the southern part was known as the Republic of Vietnam, with its capital in Saigon. In the 1960s, U.S. military troops were sent to South Vietnam to support the Saigon government in maintaining its independence from North Vietnam. In 1973, after signing the Paris Agreement, the United States began to withdraw its troops, and in the spring of 1975, the northern and southern parts of Vietnam were unified. On April 25, 1976, the country, now including both the northern and southern parts of the territory, was renamed the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in the United States of America, History of Vietnam, at http://www.vietnamembassy-usa.org/learn_about _vietnam/history (last accessed Mar. 20, 2006).

4. It is noteworthy that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. at 118, does not appear to apply in this instance. In Terry v. Principi, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) observed that the principle enunciated in Brown is "a canon of statutory construction that requires that resolution of interpretive doubt arising from statutory language be resolved in favor of the veteran." 340 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Federal Circuit then concluded that the canon "does not affect the determination of whether an agency's regulation is a permissible construction of a statute." Id.

5. During oral argument, in an attempt to clarify the limits of the Secretary's bright-line interpretation, the Court asked a series of questions. The Secretary's responses only served to confirm the Court's conviction that VA's interpretation is unreasonable, and when applied, results in such disparate outcomes that it cannot be said to comport with Congress's intent in enacting 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f). When asked to apply the regulatory interpretation in the case of a veteran who was in the waters off of Vietnam, in such sufficient depth of water that his feet did not touch the seabed, versus a veteran who was in the waters off of Vietnam and was able to touch the seabed, the Secretary responded that neither veteran would be entitled to the presumption because the regulatory definition is limited to those veterans "who set foot on land, if you will boots on ground, not touching the ocean floor." Furthermore, when asked whether there was a rational distinction between the case of a veteran aboard a vessel floating up an inland body of water such as a river (which, according to the Secretary's argument, could be miles wide), who never touched land within the geographic area of Vietnam, and a veteran who served on a ship within 100 feet of the shoreline who never touched the land, the Secretary simply responded without rationale that the latter form of service would not warrant application of the presumption. Finally, when asked whether the issue was if the veteran had been subject to being sprayed with Agent Orange, the Secretary simply reiterated that the veteran in this case, who testified that he had served within close proximity to the shore, did not have service in the Republic of Vietnam according to the regulatory definition. Thus, when further given the opportunity to provide a reasoned basis for this bright-line rule, the Secretary could not"

Now, if the two ships you served on were off the coastal waters of Vietnam at any time during the periods of hostilities, then, yes, Haas -v- Nicholson does apply to you. However, as stated before, you only mentioned, or I should say, you produced documentation from VA and the Navy which implicated you have a claim(s) pending for exposure to some sort of hazordous material from the SHAD/Project 112 experiments! You may have been exposed to Agent Orange, I don't know, but not in the context with "service in Vietnam" and the presumptive rules set forth to award service-connection on that basis.

You also stated the following;

"Now, that you are up to date you can read the documents that I have presented here and better understand why I am angry at redundant VA request for information that they already have several copies of, for an excuse of delay"

Are you sure any relevant histories of those ships that support your claim are in your C-file for consideration? You mentioned that you had a VSO who sounded like they didn't do much. Maybe that is were the problem(s) is/are. I'm not defending VA in this case, but you have to remember, in your case now, there have been numerous people, such as one or two RVSR's, DRO, BVA Judge, Numerous peolple at he AMC, and probably a number of "coaches" at the developmental teams, that have peered into your claim(s). The chances of any intentional wrong doing, or conspiracy to delay and deny your claimed benefits are pretty remote. There has to be something pretty significant in your claim that's missing to warrent a continious denial.

Vike 17

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • In Memoriam

Vike,

You are right, my beef is with the DoD, as well as the VA. I know that this is kind of long, but please bear with me and my additional expression of color.

I was in an Attack Squadron USN VA-113, 1967-1971. We moved around allot. All over the US many places.

I served on USS Saratoga CVA-60 1969-1970, in the Caribbean Atlantic, and Mediterranean Sea (see Deseret Test DTC 69-10 SHAD). The DoD has forgotten who was involved in their Guinea pig experiments, with there ships involved and listed as UNKNOWN or not even listed.

Admiral Farragut (1801-1870) did not say, "Damn the Navy Veterans, full speed ahead."

The DoD has also forgotten the other SHAD test, that were performed on us. I have not forgotten the test, and neither have my Plane Captain buddies, who are suffering from heart disease, diabetes, respiratory problems, sleep problems, and mental problems. The DoD, is finally remembering some of us, from time to time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I served On USS Ranger CVA-61 1970-1971, in the Pacific and Tonkin Gulf for almost a year. I was awarded VSM, VSC (2), MUC, and several other commendations in the coastal waters of Viet Nam. I have actually posted these awards and medals, with the write-ups from the Sec of Navy, here at hadit.

My claims related to AO and SHAD, are COPD (asbestos, JP-5, AO, SHAD, Hydraulic Fluid, and many more), PN, Diabetes, sleep apnea, and I dare not add any other claims to this AO or SHAD list, for further stalls. The other claims are directly related to service injury. These can all be proved so that any 5th grader could understand.

VA review people, called up right before Christmas, and ask me which claims I wanted, that were AO claims. Presumptive disease are for my future problems, with me. Navy claims that have AO or Project 112/SHAD written on them are discriminated against and avoided like the plague.

My claims are more than 5 years old and repeated every-time the VSR asked which ones are related to AO. VSR, is like a Chatty Kathy doll, you just pull the string and it says the same thing over and over again for many years.

The actual VA denials are written on Blue paper (Project 112/SHAD Paper), not white paper like regular claims. It is funny to see about 30 pages all in Blue, they really stand out from the rest and are easy to find. AO claims are written on white paper.

My AO claims are almost identical to HAAS. You can not tell HAAS, that there is no conspiracy to stall his claims. I have posted my AO claims Haas hold letter, previously here at hadit.

I am just a Navy Puke (Blue), and I gave-up on VA run-around help years ago. When I found that many, in my squadron, are already dead, and that several of my PC buddies are suffering the same illness, including John-who has eight heart stints, I decided to do something for myself as well as them. Most Army Veterans do not know what is going on, and I will try to explain so that you will know. Army generals understand perfectly well what is going on.

Army personnel have made the decisions for "Boots on the ground" to the discrimination of Navy peoples. Congress never meant that the DoD or Sec. of the VA would interpret the law. Even congress can not interpret the law, because congress has changed. The DoD or Sec. of the VA does not own the Supreme Court or the VA and neither do VSO's or VSR's.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

These claims are only a few on this list (front page for contrast of color).

I worked daily-basis directly with Jet noise for three years. I have had tinnitus for 35+ years. My hearing loss is over 40db @ 4 different frequencies, the worst being about 85db. Automatic VA Blue-Paper denial. My re-opened back claim was originally dated 1973.

The VA decided to re-open the back claim, when they found out that several buddies, who served with me, signed affidavits with official Notaries; Medical evidence (CAT, MRI, Xray, and Neurologist statements); and SMR that shows the injuries. They decided to reopen the claim instead of actually making the back-date to 1973, when it was originally denied at the VARO level (Just fell through the cracks). My lawyer will straighten this out soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • In Memoriam

Jeez, I just noticed that the front page, of the VA denial document below, reads that I am represented by the VFW. I ask the VFW to represent me at the BVA hearing. The VFW was a no-show (Happy hour), and I canceled VFW POA immediately. VFW was my POA for about 2 weeks. No contact and no-show. They didn't even know I was there.

Some Veterans got an apple and an orange, but because the VA says that the Veteran can only have his choice of an apple or an orange, the Veteran is left behind. I am not a doctor. I just know what happened, and I know what the results are. At this point I feel like just giving up.

This document below was to thank the DAV for their support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

Michael,

I’m going to try and be really gentle with my response, so don’t jump all over me. I’m only trying to help you receive your benefits that you deserve.

I served on USS Saratoga CVA-60 1969-1970, in the Caribbean Atlantic, and Mediterranean Sea (see Deseret Test DTC 69-10 SHAD). The DoD has forgotten who was involved in their Guinea pig experiments, with there ships involved and listed as UNKNOWN or not even listed…The DoD has also forgotten the other SHAD test, that were performed on us. I have not forgotten the test, and neither have my Plane Captain buddies, who are suffering from heart disease, diabetes, respiratory problems, sleep problems, and mental problems. The DoD, is finally remembering some of us, from time to time

As I said before, your beef here is with the DoD, not with VA. The VA can do nothing if the ship you served on is not listed as to have been associated with SHAD/project 112, or you are listed on the list of over 5000 crew members that had taken part in the experiments. Until it becomes official from DoD that this occurred, the VA has no choice but to deny the associated benefits on a presumptive basis. You’ll need to prove with evidence of ‘direct Service connection.’ VA’s hands are tied in this matter. Also, since different stimulants and chemicals were used in different test, you’ll need to find out which ones you were supposedly exposed to and determine if they have known effects afterwards. The only two condition, Heart disease and Diabetes, which appears you have claimed as a result of this exposure, would merit any service-connection. However, as I said before, you would need to determine which stimulants and chemical you could have been exposed to. Respiratory problems, asbestos exposure, sleep problems, and mental problems are not associated with any chemical used in agent Orange or Agent Blue for that matter.

Respiratory problems can be associated with asbestos exposure, so you would need to make that connection via medical evidence which pertain to you, not the general public, and you would probably need to prove, for example, that your NAVY MOS was somehow associated with asbestos. Again this would have nothing to do with the SHAD/Project 112 incidents.

Sleep problems, as far as I know aren’t in any way associated with the chemicals used in the above agents, maybe I’m wrong, I haven’t seen any studies done to make a connection. How is this related to your military service? Is this noted in your SMR’s? Same with mental problems, the only way I see a possible connection would be the experiments were so horrific they may have caused PTSD or something of that nature. Having said that, I’m no doctor, so you would have to go see a shrink or a Neurologist to substantiate any connection.

I served On USS Ranger CVA-61 1970-1971, in the Pacific and Tonkin Gulf for almost a year. I was awarded VSM, VSC (2), MUC, and several other commendations in the coastal waters of Viet Nam

This is what I stated in my previous post, if your ships served in the coastal waters off of Vietnam, then those disabilities attributed with exposure to chemicals used in AO would fall under Haas –v- Nicholson. In you case these would only be Heart disease, Diabetes, Respiratory problems if you are diagnosed with any of the respiratory cancers listed in §3.309

…My claims related to AO and SHAD, are COPD (asbestos, JP-5, AO, SHAD, Hydraulic Fluid, and many more), PN, Diabetes, sleep apnea, and I dare not add any other claims to this AO or SHAD list, for further stalls. The other claims are directly related to service injury. These can all be proved so that any 5th grader could understand

Like I said above, Heart disease, Diabetes, Respiratory problems if you are diagnosed with any of the respiratory cancers listed in §3.309, would be the only disabilities that might warrant service-connection under the Haas –v- Nicholson decision and the AO presumptive criteria, providing that ever gets straightened out through the Courts. Exposure to any number of the stimulants and chemical used in the SHAD/Project 112 experiments DO NOT fall under any of the presumptive rules pertaining to AO. Some of those chemical may have been the same used in Agent Orange or Agent Blue, but they do warrant service-connection under those guidelines!! You need to understand possible exposure to AO during “Service in Vietnam” or off the coastal waters and the arguments in Haas –v- Nicholson DO NOT have anything to do with SHAD/Project 112 and any exposure that may have occurred there!! Furthermore, asbestos has nothing to do with AO exposure and the regulation surrounding it. Any disabilities resulting from asbestos exposure needs to be substantiated by itself i.e. submitting evidence that your MOS in the Navy exposed you to it, you have a current diagnosed disability associated with asbestos exposure and credible medical evidence supporting the nexus between the two! This goes for exposure to JP-5 and Hydraulic fluid, they have nothing to do with AO exposure or the SHAD experiments and need evidence the same way as I outlined for asbestos exposure.

VA review people, called up right before Christmas, and ask me which claims I wanted, that were AO claims. Presumptive disease are for my future problems, with me. Navy claims that have AO or Project 112/SHAD written on them are discriminated against and avoided like the plague"

If you have presented your claims to the VA the way you have presented them here, its no wonder the VA is confused. I don’t mean this in a negative way, just making an observation. You also said “Presumptive disease are for my future problems, with me” If I understand this right, you have claimed disabilities that you currently don’t have, and you’ve claimed them in the event you have them later?!?!?! If this is the case, I’m sorry, that’s a no go. I’m not even going write a response to that. Navy Veterans with possible exposure to the SHAD/Project 112 experiments are not avoided “like the plague” If you have a current disability with a diagnosed that is know to be attributed by those stimulants and chemicalsused in those experiments and your name is on the list of personnel of 5,842 that were a part of the experiments, or your ship(s) are also listed on the list released by DoD, then you’ll receive your due benefits.

The actual VA denials are written on Blue paper (Project 112/SHAD Paper), not white paper like regular claims. It is funny to see about 30 pages all in Blue, they really stand out from the rest and are easy to find. AO claims are written on white paper

Do you really believe this?? All original rating decisions (file copies) are printed on blue paper and any subsequent copies are printed on white paper. M21-1MR, Part III, Subpart IV, §1 (B) states;

Print the signed file copy of rating decisions on blue paper, except as specifically provided for overprint rating decisions. Print the decision on both sides of the paper, called duplex printing, provided that the reverse side is printed head to foot, that is, the short edge as opposed to the long edge. Note: Copies of rating decisions do not have to be on blue paper

All veterans rating decisions are printed on blue paper, regardless of their branch of service. For what its worth, all my ratings I have received from VA except for one have been on blue paper and I was in the Army. The majority of the claims I’ve done have received their ratings also on blue paper. A couple of them have also been AO claims!

My AO claims are almost identical to HAAS. You can not tell HAAS, that there is no conspiracy to stall his claims. I have posted my AO claims Haas hold letter, previously here at hadit

No they’re not. Well, not all of them. Just the Diabetes, Heart disease and respiratory problems (if you’re diagnosed with any of the respiratory cancers) Like I said before, all of your other apparent claims have nothing to do with the Haas –v- Nicholson decision.

I am just a Navy Puke (Blue), and I gave-up on VA run-around help years ago. When I found that many, in my squadron, are already dead, and that several of my PC buddies are suffering the same illness, including John-who has eight heart stints, I decided to do something for myself as well as them. Most Army Veterans do not know what is going on, and I will try to explain so that you will know. Army generals understand perfectly well what is going on

Like I said before, you’re beef is with the DoD, not VA. The VA’s hands are tied until the DoD releases more of the classified documents, or amends their current lists to include you, your buddies and your ships! For what it’s worth, do all of your buddies have claims pending with VA? If so, were they exposed to JP-5 and Hydraulic fluid. If so, do they have medical evidence supporting the nexus?

Army personnel have made the decisions for "Boots on the ground" to the discrimination of Navy peoples. Congress never meant that the DoD or Sec. of the VA would interpret the law. Even congress can not interpret the law, because congress has changed. The DoD or Sec. of the VA does not own the Supreme Court or the VA and neither do VSO's or VSR's

The last time I check Congress made the decision to implement “Boots on the ground” rules for service-connection, and not all Congressmen served in the Army! Furthermore, VA employees do not interpret the laws. They are suppose to follow them and by the looks of it, they have followed them in your case.. The VA Office of General Counsel “interprets’ the laws when VA employees when they have a question pertaining to the applicability of them. For what it’s worth The VA OCG are lawyers! What does the Supreme Court have to do with this aside from the Haas –v- Nicholson decision maybe going there. Of course the VA and VSO’s, VSR’s ect… doesn’t “own” the Supreme Court.

I worked daily-basis directly with Jet noise for three years. I have had tinnitus for 35+ years. My hearing loss is over 40db @ 4 different frequencies, the worst being about 85db. Automatic VA Blue-Paper denial

What does your ETS physical say as far as hearing loss? Or did you begin to have hearing loss years after service? If the later is the case, have you submitted credible medical evidence from an Audiologist stating your current hearing loss is at least as likely as not a result of your exposure to loud jet engines while in the Navy and he/she gave an explaination as to why they came to such a conclusion? Did you actually claim tinnitus as secondary to hearing loss? As far as the blue paper decision, see my response above!

My re-opened back claim was originally dated 1973. The VA decided to re-open the back claim, when they found out that several buddies, who served with me, signed affidavits with official Notaries; Medical evidence (CAT, MRI, Xray, and Neurologist statements); and SMR that shows the injuries. They decided to reopen the claim instead of actually making the back-date to 1973, when it was originally denied at the VARO level (Just fell through the cracks). My lawyer will straighten this out soon

Sure, you may have originally file a claim for a back condition in 1973, but after the denial you didn’t appeal it and has been on continued appeal since then, I’m not sure what your argument is. It sounds like the VA re-opened the claim after they received your buddies statements and they considered it “New and Material” evidence. When you filed your claim for your back in 1973 (I assume this was shortly after discharge), was your back condition “chronic” while in the Navy. Your SMR’s may show an injury to your back, but to warrant service-connection, you must have proof of residuals of that injury! What kind of Continuity of treatment since discharge have you had and does the VA have those records? I’m not sure where a lawyer will be able to help you in this, but it’s your money.

Vike 17

P.S. I'm sorry if there are spelling errors ect.. I didn't have time to proof read it.

Edited by Vike17 (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vike,

does the VA compensate Navy or Airforce Veterans, who have obtained illnesses as a direct result of occupational exposure to enviromental hazzards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

Sure they do. However, I have never personally helped with such a claim, I have just done a few AO exposure claims; cancers and diabetes ect...

Veterans seem to think that just because they were exposed to such materials they have a valid claim. They must keep in mind that just the exposure in and of itself is not compensable by VA, just the residuals from disabilities stemming from such exposure are compensable.

Claims being granted and denied are viewable at the BVA and the Courts website. I typed in asbestos exposure at the Court's website and came up with 170 hits with 31 documents. The first two were Ashford -v-Brown and Roebuck -v- Nicholson. They both were pretty interesting readings.

The VA will grant service-connection for disability residuals suffered from occupation and enviromental hazards incurred while in the military. In order for VA to do this, they need to have proof of the exposure while on active duty and ultimately a diagnosed disability with know association to that exposure ie. the nexus.

Vike 17

Edited by Vike17 (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

Ultimately, it is the Congress who wants to limit what constitutes exposure to AO. Remember it is all about money. If the current people in congress and the white house can tip toe awar from billions of dollars in future compensation for sick AO vets they will do it. If our elected leaders really wanted AO vets to be compensated they would be. They could call on more testing and they could shape the results to compensate us. There is no truth or honor in politics just "who gets what and how much" And "What have you done for me lately".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • In Memoriam

Vike,

I thank you for responding, and I know of your sincerity. Just the time involved for response shows me of you earnestness. Evidence is so over-whelming that is hard to put together. I have built a web site for this purpose. If I break it down into sections, I will do better. Please understand my pain causes irritation. I don't mean it, nor am I aloof though been accused of it before. Without this spell checker you would not even be able to read what I am writing.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Lung Diseases caused by:

Asbestos Exposure:

The ships that I was on are on this list. USS Saratoga 1969-1970, USS Ranger 1970-1971.

http://www.mesothelioma-navy.com/navyships.asp

  • emphysema
  • chronic bronchitis/asthma.
  • Diagnosed.... Va with COPD..
  • Chronic Breathing treatments in SMR (about 8 times usually at Sea).
  • Yes, all 6 of us worked on the flight-deck and were in the same squadron (2 dead-1 cancer..2 almost dead..2 heart and vascular disease). These were only Six that I poled and I am trying to help them, before they die. This has been going on progressively worse since our late 40's. Only one of us could stand up for the fight.
  • Diagnose by 3 doctors with COPD/asthma/can't remember the other could be Restrictive Airway Disease
  • NEC (same as mos) shows Feb 1968...6630 , May 15 1969 through Dec. 1969...6630 and secondary 6691 (AT and Plane Captain NEC). Then after Nixon got was pardon, by President Ford, back to July 1969, to cover up SHAD and his involvement. My NEC was rolled back to April 1969 with 0000 secondary 0000. I have the original copy, of the whited-out NEC, with the bleed-through of the original numbers, that my Congressman found. Submitted. Also have the change order from the Sec. of Navy changing this NEC; the officer that did it; that he did it in Dec 1969. submitted.


    AO... Presumptive disease, does not disclaim other Respiratory disease related to AO.
    • Numerous pictures of the AO clouds, around the ship, that we lived in for about a year.
    • Pictures of me standing by the intake duct of the A-7, we had to crawl down to clean the chemicals out of.
    • A picture of the outside of the intake duct of the VA-113 A-7, from the inside out.
    • Info on Ranch Hand 1970-1971
    • SMR of several growths that were cut off of my hands.
    • SMR of ganglion growths on my wrist. Gone now. My daughter has them now. I showed her how to smash your hand up against the wall and break it.
    • Pictures of coast of VN
    • Diagnosed with the diseases of Chronic Emphysema/Chronic bronchitis/COPD/asthma...VA diagnosed 2 civilian Doctors diagnosis...Also diagnosed same AO registry.
    • Ships position (Longitude and Latitude) in the Gulf of Tonkin
    • Dates of being within the Gulf of Tonkin.
    • SMR Respiratory ailments treated. Frequent Tonsillitis, throat, 101 temps, and Octis Media treated.
    • Events, while in the Gulf (VSM and write-up evidence., etc.)
    • Accidents in the Gulf of Tonkin aboard ship with Pictures of VN in the background
    • No actual AO NEXUS as of yet. I do need a nexus here.
    • VA doctor says no diabetes. I said W/C says diabetes.. showed VA Doctor the diagnosis page. VA doctor says well, you are borderline diabetes. I hesitate to even add this to my claims at this time even though Presumptive.


      Project 112/SHAD This one will be held up at all cost (5000+ extra men). (Never had Blue-paper except for this one SHAD....Denials, SOC's, and SSOC's all white). I have only talked to one SHAD vet who had Blue. Nobody else knows what I am talking about. DoD, does a side step, DoD will not say NO to SHAD for a reason. Doris Lama (CNO-FOIA) told me, it shakes people up when you mention SHAD.
      • VA simply says that the DoD e-mailed them saying that these ships were not on the deployment link. If DoD, does not eat crow, this will cost Billions. If DoD does, eat crow, it is only going to cost them millions and humiliation. Congress knows that, this is not just going to go away.
      • Pictures of English corroboration on-board the USS Saratoga 8/69, they stayed for weeks. Nice pictures of British Phantoms with USS Saratoga actually painted on the sides of their A/C. submitted. Ships news paper showing the USS Saratoga British Phantoms with write-up. submitted
      • British Secret Docs (Now Declassified) of British involvement in this experiments at the time (Ports Down). Bet this upset somebody.
      • Was in the place of Vieques Island (Latitude and Longitude) in May 1969
      • Ships records of the location at the Place and time in Virgin Islands....Viques Island Puerto Rico during the test.
      • I witnessed with my own eyes the two Marine A4's which flew aboard with their tanks that they used on experiments. I touched the silver A-4 with my hands. Sure, I don't have an analysis of the actual chemicals, but it was a cheesy-white kind of material. Some of our squadron A/C had the cheesy-white material in the intake duct, that I had to clean out. For some reason this particular A/C became a cannibalized A/C (where they take parts off of it for other A/C).
      • Graphics description of the two A-4's that were aboard our ship May 1969 (Silver birds A-4's that I have never seen..Like sand-blasted) (Could be Deseret DTC 69-10) Our ship not listed, yet.
      • SMR....NSU (Chronic Non-Specific Urethritis 9 times after exposure starting early June 1969 through 1971)
      • Explanation that more than 300 men, were in the NSU line, after exposure. Many more men in line on other days 6/69
      • There was more than one event for these SHAD experiments. I became significantly ill at the time of exposure on one occasion. It is as if poisoned and not just me either. Smell like rotten apricots.
      • At least one man dead after exposure......Not recorded in ships logs....That I have sent proof of.
      • Urethral Scaring with Cyst removed diagnosed by Kaiser 1999 ...I think osteoscopy.. Doctor was confused he had never seen anything this.
      • Various cyst on right chest, back of left neck, and under right arm. remove by civilian and VA Doctors.
      • VA's own memorandum on the above conditions that I just happen to have.
      • Statement that DoD will not release my missing records, from July through Sept. 1969. This could be taken up soon, by congress (Thompson etc.) passed by Senate, so far.
      • Commends from ships Captain and also Squadron Commander. They should have of kissed us guinea pigs.
      • Plane Captain NEC Flight-Deck pay records from May 1969 on. Submitted after VA said there was no record of such. I kept them.
      • Plane-Captain school records. Aircraft equipment handling licenses (all) submitted. Tow Tractor, Generators, Huffer, trucks, and etc.


        Deviated Nasal Septum (0% SC-1986) Service assault, being push down a forty foot stair-way Corfu Greece.
        • SMR...Broken nose
        • SMR...Loss of 4 teeth, four other remove is service from the injury, and injuring 8 others. Dental SMR with Trauma, from the fall, submitted.
        • SMR...Broken swollen lip Service Dental records Dental Trauma
        • SMR...Unconscious
        • Unconscious off and on for about 2 weeks.
        • SMR poor rating for this month. I just wasn't all there.
        • Original civilian doctor, who did surgery 1975-Nasal, because of VA logjam IMO (2) 2004 (1) 2005 COPD/Asthma nasal septum related to service injury of falling 2004 injuring nose etc. exacerbating the three other conditions (COPD).
        • 5 buddy statements, who were there, stating that this injury occurred, Mike was never the same. Submitted 2003.
        • Statement of X-wife stating that I had black eyes and face upon returning from Viet Nam. Also not the same person anymore. Submitted 2003. Divorced after 4 years. PTSD
        • Service exit physical said that I am dentally qualified Type III Class I. (have no-idea) Rated dental in 1986? I have had VA dental since 1972, but don't remember a rating.
        • Pictures of before service and after showing injuries. [numerous)

        --------------------------------------------------------------

        Back Injury:

        [*]SMR show sickbay recorded fall trauma, and dental recorded fall trauma.

        [*]Buddy statements as to two injuries, nature, and relationship to me aboard ship in the squadron.

        [*]A pictorial history starting at about 14 years old, to current, show after-service scoliosis of more than 12 degrees after injury and not before service or within 1 year while in service. Is not Juvenile Scoliosis.

        [*]VA Neuro diagnosed Spinal stenosis with Lateral narrowing of disc L4-L5, L5-S1, budging disc.

        [*]Degenerative Lumbar diagnosed, by VA Neuro, happened years ago from an injury (taking meds now)

        [*]Some thoracic area (around 10-11) deformed from the scoliosis. Some Cervical deformed from the degeneration. Probably what causes the headaches and pain in shoulders. This was all diagnosed by VA neuro, confirmed by Xray,CAT, and MRI.

        [*]VA Denial 1986 of this Service Back injury VARO was sent to VARO Little Rock. (This did not go to CAVC) I didn't stand a chance, because I was mentally ill. No Lawyer back then and the VA could say anything they wanted without Vets Court....

        [*]1986 VA Denials said that I had trauma, from a accidental fall down stair-case (SMR), for nasal septum 0%, but that for the back claim, there was not indication anywhere within SMR that show an accident or fall. ?

        [*]Seen chiropractor from 1972 through 1995, letter from doctor submitted.

        [*]Saw VA doctor in early 1970's, he said that I was too young to have a back problem. They kept me baffled, because of my mental conditions.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        Mental:

        PTSD and Depression

        [*]Taking PTSD meds (Several to include Prozac and Quat. now)

        [*]Gaf 43 consistent for about 3 years

        [*]PTSD Licensed Social Worker diagnosis Gaf 43 more likely.

        [*]VA Psychiatrist gave med, diagnosis, and Gaf 43 also.

        [*]Went to Cognitive Behavior Classes Gaf 43.

        [*]PTSD classes series.

        [*]Set up for several that I don't even know what they are, classes. (Anger, pain maybe both)

        [*]Submitted Buddy statements notarized affidavit's with all the stuff, relationship in squadron etc.; report of behavior change after the fall; another assault in Vietnam, deaths, and etc.

        [*]Numerous info on death guys I saw. One should have been me.

        [*]Doctors scripts for depression (for several years Valium-couldn't take this fog stopped 1975). I live here, in pain.

        [*]VA statements saying I am a chronic drunk, sent numerous statements say no drink or drug since 1975. With the Exception of VA meds given now.

        [*]Treated for Depression all along the pass and constant treatment from 2001 to present

        [*]Psychologist letter explaining the depression -- Rule out PTSD

        [*]X-Wife statement......I just didn't like this one, but sent it anyway.

        [*]Many people from 1973 through present, letters of observations submitted.

        [*]Much more, but I dig further now. Lets go to hearing

        -----------------------------------------------------------------

        Hearing and tinnitus:

        [*]VA audiology lab says 6 frequencies over 35 Db both ears.

        [*]Ringing in ears from noise of service aircraft both ears. I couldn't stand it in the 1970's, between this ringing and the Dreams I did attempt.

        [*]VA denial says Moderate hearing loss both ears.

        [*]I have repeated ear problems over the years treated with civilian docs. Kaiser

        [*]Statement of family about the problems involved with my hearing loss.

        [*]Proof of working with Jets, for 3 straight years, continuously launch and recovery.

        [*]The audiologist said I will see you next year.

        [*]VARO's denial was nothing like the read-out audiologist gave me.

        [*]Numerous Pictures of working around AC flight-deck and on land. Sitting on them, in them, and around them.

        There are other claims, but I can not remember the questions, that I am answering. PN is related to the borderline diabetes, till I get a real doctor. You know that I will be going for more IMO Nexus, very soon.

        Right now the file is about 50 pounds, and if the VA wants 100 pounds more, I will give it to them.

        I know that this is confusing for the VA. An attorney would help, as I am swimming even now. I should have been dead years ago, but my bone butt, 6'4" 160 pounds is going to fight the fight and live till I win. The one of us who is in the best condition has been 100% SC for years. I know what happened to him. It was terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

From the looks of things in your last post, without reading any of the actual rating decisions, SOC's, SSOC's, and any BVA Remand, it appears you're missuing the nexus with your claims.

You said you have "emphysema, chronic bronchitis/asthma, COPD and possible Restrictive Airway Disease. For the most part all of these are seperate disabilities/condition, all of which has something to do with the lungs. What was the actual diagnoses of the " Chronic Breathing treatments" in your SMR's. Regardless if it was actually diagnosed while you were in the Navy or not, it looks like the nexus between all of your breathing problems/lung conditions and the exposure to asbestos is missing. The three doctors that have treated you need to write an IMO connecting the dots.

As far as your AO presumptive claims, you even stated that you don't have the nexus yet. Without having the nexus and the decision of Haas -v- Nicholson hanging in the balance, the VA has no choice but to render a denial.

Regarding the disabilities from exposure to any chemicals ect... from the SHAD/Project 112 experiments, it appears you have claimed Urethritis and some type of skin condition (cyst on neck, chest, and arm). Again it looks lke the nexus between the exposure and those conditions are missing. It would be interesting to read any SOC's and SSOC's regarding the 9 treatments of Urethritis and what was said about them. At any rate I would guess the over all nexus is missing.

Your service-connected septum at 0% would be rated I believe on the amount of "obstruction of the nasal passage." Did you claim the loss of teeth as being service-connected? Did you make a claim for residuals of the concussion. Maybe you suffered some type of chronic brain syndrome due to being knocked unconscious? Maybe that is the root of your mental problems! You'll need to see a Neurologist to see if this is the case! If I'm not mistaken, one can only be rated for asthma or COPD, not both. So claiming both of them would only result in the more severe of the tow be rated. Having said all of this, it still looks like the VA still needs a nexus between all of this. You only mention a doctor in 1975 that made some sort of connection between the deviated septum and COPD and asthma. Take a look a the SOC's and SSOC's for the exact answer.

In reference to your back injury, it seems unclear whether you had aninjury prior to the service, as you stated you provided VA a history since your were 14 of having a good back , but since service of having 12 degrees of curvature (I assume this was measured according to the 'Cobb' criteria) of the spine. However, then you mention of having thoracic problems at 10-11. I don't know if you mean this as happeneing at that age, or are you referencing this as degrees of curvature also???? At any rate, if the VA did miss the entry in your SMR's about the back injury, it still looks like you're still missing a nexus as to the post service treatments and the inservice back injury and will need an IMO. have that VA Neurologist make a determination as to the origins of your back injury. He did state it was from "years ago." Also, if you can locate that VA doctor from the early 1970's that stated you were too youngto be having back problems, he might be able to assist you.

Your PTSD and depression seems to also be missing the nexus to your service. Did you specifically claim PTSD. If so, was the VA able to verify your claimed stressor? Did the Social worker and VA shrink connect your current PTSD to your in-service stressor? You may need another shrink's assesment of your PTSD since one shrink ruled it out. You may be better off claiming Depression instead of PTSD. Then you would only have to show manifestation of depressive symptoms during active duty with continued treatment, instead of a verified stressor with an actual disagnosis of PTSD. Does this make sense? If you claimed PTSD then I would be willing to bet, if the VA verified your stressor, that the link between your curreent diagnosis and that stressor is missing. It's hard to tell though wothout looking at your C-file.

The hearing loss and Tinnitus appears also to be missing the link to your service. Va has acknowledged thatyou have moderate hearing loss, but there isn't anything linking it to your exposure to jet engine noises. All of the other stuff you stated is purely subjective to the VA. They need evidence from an Audiologist to award service-connection.

I hope this helps you in some way!

Vike 17

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines