New And Improved

[Stretch]

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?

[Vike17]

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 January 1, 2007 by Vike17

[Stretch]

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

[Vike17]

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

[Stretch]

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.

[Stretch]

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.

[Vike17]

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 January 3, 2007 by Vike17