Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Blue Water Navy-from John Rossie

Rate this question


Berta

Question

John , Blue Water Navy Advocate-who has done SO MUCH on this issue-( former President of  BWNVVA)

is attempting to get his article here published in a newspaper and wanted me to post it here at hadit. Unfortunately there are very few news outlets interested in issues like this which ,in my opinion, should be national news.

John left his phone number in the article and I hope some of you have comments here on this, that I could pass on to him:

Leaving the Carrier Sailors Behind

 

Recent House action on the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act (HR-299) will move that legislation out of Committee and onto the Floor for a vote. The Bill has taken over 11 years of hard work by many advocates and supporters. But a serious shortcoming in the Bill requires at least a name change because this legislation will not cover all Blue Water Navy (BWN) sailors. It is currently limited to men on ships that traveled inside the Territorial Seas, defined as 12 miles from Baseline. The only ships that did not enter the Territorial Seas during every WESTPAC Cruise were aircraft carriers with thousands of sailors aboard.

 

Some individuals have insisted that no one is being abandoned because the carrier sailors, not specifically named in the expansion of presumptive coverage for herbicide exposure, have a way to file for their VA benefits under the provisions of Direct Exposure. But this suggestion to file a disability claim under the rules of Direct Exposure is an absurd idea. Filing under Direct Exposure was available to all BWN veterans since the VA took this group’s presumptive exposure rights away in 2002. It was precisely the difficulties of winning a claim under a Direct Exposure filing that sent the BWN Association up in arms and started the movement over a decade ago to re-establish presumptive exposure benefits through legislation and litigation. Advocates for Blue Water Navy veterans have fought for the past decade to find a better option than filing for Direct Exposure, so why is this method now good enough for the carrier sailors who served within the Theater of Combat but not within the Territorial Seas? There have been less than a dozen BWN disability claims that have ever won approval under the restrictions of the Direct Exposure rules since the inception of the Agent Orange Act of 1991.

 

Twenty-two aircraft carriers served in the Theater of Combat of Vietnam between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975. In total, these 22 aircraft carriers spent more than 550 months in the waters of the Vietnam Combat Zone and each month of their activities is recorded in a Deck Log. To date, 88% of the available Deck Logs have been carefully analyzed. So far, only 50 occasions have been found when a specific carrier was in the Territorial Seas of Vietnam. The remainder of the time, the carriers were all in locations other than the narrow band of water identified as the Territorial Seas.

 

Approximately 20% of the members of the U.S. 7th Fleet served on the carriers. Using numbers currently associated with naval personnel having served in the Combat Zone of Vietnam, this represents more than 34,000 Vietnam carrier veterans who will not be represented in the Blue Water Navy legislation and subsequently will not be eligible for the associated benefits even though the carriers were subjected to Agent Orange contamination to a possibly greater extent than other ships. Ironically, these 34,000 carrier sailors are included in the 174,500 BWN veterans that are factored into the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimates for the legislation, but they are not identified in the language of the Bill as veterans who will benefit from HR-299’s passage.

 

Because paying for these benefits has been the key hold-up for these past 11 years, it is ludicrous that these carrier sailors are now paid for, but due to an oversight in wording, they will still not get their VA disability benefits like other sailors who served offshore Vietnam. A title like “The Close-In Naval Support Ship Veterans of Vietnam Act” is a much more appropriate name for HR-299. The current title and wording erroneously preclude 20% of BWN veterans from obtaining the critically needed benefits. The wording of HR-299 needs to be changed to include sailors in the entire Theater of Combat before another terrible injustice befalls some members of the Blue Water Navy.

 

John Rossie

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Berta

GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !

When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief

Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was

simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."

Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.

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

Thank you for posting this on the BWN Berta..Jerrel

                                                                                        View all unread
 

Elk Hunt Test #65_14_Gerstle River Test Site_Landbase Test_Ft. Greely AK. 1964_S.R.#99_06

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything

the American public believes is false."-- William Casey, CIA Director!!!

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


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • spazbototto earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Paul Gretza earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Troy Spurlock went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • KMac1181 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • jERRYMCK earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use