Veteran Needs Your Help !

[rthomass]

I need help from any Veteran that served in Thailand during the Vietnam Era; Specifically Nakon Phanom RTAFB "NKP" Air Force Base, "naked Fanny" during the peiod of August 1969 to August 1970. Need Corroboration of Agent Orange use to support claim remanded by the CAVC to the Board Of Veteran Appeals "BVA".

Randall D. Thomas Sr.

rthomass@insightbb.com

Edited March 29, 2007 by rthomass (see edit history)

[Chuck75]

http://digilander.libero.it/statefarm.agen...e-thailand.html

Agent Orange (Herbicides) Used Outside of Vietnam

DoD has confirmed that Agent Orange was used from April 1968 up through July 1969 along the Pranburi and other locations in Thailand Prosser, Washington

The web site operator may have a means of getting more detailed info.

I need help from any Veteran that served in Thailand during the Vietnam Era; Specifically Nakon Phanom RTAFB "NKP" Air Force Base, "naked Fanny" during the peiod of August 1969 to August 1970. Need Corroboration of Agent Orange use to support claim remanded by the CAVC to the Board Of Veteran Appeals "BVA".

Randall D. Thomas Sr.

rthomass@insightbb.com

[Berta]

Would the way this case succeeded help you?

http://www.va.gov/vetapp04/files2/0418252.txt

This is a AO Thailand vet and the claim is very interesting-

not only was this before even the Korean vet AO info was public-

this claim is based on the VA's attempt to call CUE on their past decision to the vet's detriment.

I posted the first Okinawa AO win here and also one or 2 Korean vet claims I believe- due to AO.

Here is a AO Guam remand:

It shows how detailed these claims must be---

http://www.va.gov/vetapp04/files2/0410171.txt

The veterans MOS and also buddy statements can help-

his unit might have a web site-

he should check any reunion lists too- to get corroboration from someone- preferably in command- to show he was exposed to AO by his MOS.

What did the CAVC remand call for as evidence?

Is it on line yet at CAVC web site?

The citation in this link could help-different air base but still- shows you how these claims need lots of research.

http://www.ffrd.org/Agent_Orange/laosao.htm

"Also unconfirmed is herbicide use by Air America or the CIA, whose records are still closed.[33] In an April 1968 interview, the vice-president of Air America declared that his company had been contracted by the Department of Defense to defoliate vegetation in Vietnam, Laos, and southern Thailand, based from the Udon Thani airbase.[34] The 1971-3 opium destruction missions were probably carried out on this basis, and secondary sources also report that the CIA had spray mission capability.[35] Air Force records do not list any UC-123 aircraft at Udon Thani during this period, suggesting that other aircraft might have been used; however, 7 UC-123’s were present at the Nakhon Phanom airbase in 1970 and 1971, presumably for defoliation purposes.[36] Further research is needed to confirm the extent of additional herbicide use in Laos."

[Berta]

It IS the same air base-

"7 UC-123’s were present at the Nakhon Phanom airbase in 1970 and 1971, presumably for defoliation purposes.[36] Further research is needed to confirm the extent of additional herbicide use in Laos."

He could attempt to find more from the Gov under the FOIA on the UC 123s -all of Vietnam has been declassified.or could be with an FOIA request-

I forget -does he have an AO presumptive illness?

If he doesnt have that- this will be difficult but at least the court remamded it-

Maybe this is your claim? or are you helping a vet with it?

[rthomass]

http://digilander.libero.it/statefarm.agen...e-thailand.html

Agent Orange (Herbicides) Used Outside of Vietnam

DoD has confirmed that Agent Orange was used from April 1968 up through July 1969 along the Pranburi and other locations in Thailand Prosser, Washington

The web site operator may have a means of getting more detailed info.

Chuck75 I appreciate your information; I believe a close read of he cited web page cites The DMZ Korea.

Any info is a help though. have info from Veteran statoned at NKp 69 that corroborates my statement of Agent Orange use at NKP 69 - 70. Also Berta There weere Definitely C-123 Ao Spayers a NKP; never bothered to count them.

[rthomass]

Would the way this case succeeded help you?

http://www.va.gov/vetapp04/files2/0418252.txt

This is a AO Thailand vet and the claim is very interesting-

not only was this before even the Korean vet AO info was public-

this claim is based on the VA's attempt to call CUE on their past decision to the vet's detriment.

I posted the first Okinawa AO win here and also one or 2 Korean vet claims I believe- due to AO.

Here is a AO Guam remand:

It shows how detailed these claims must be---

http://www.va.gov/vetapp04/files2/0410171.txt

The veterans MOS and also buddy statements can help-

his unit might have a web site-

he should check any reunion lists too- to get corroboration from someone- preferably in command- to show he was exposed to AO by his MOS.

What did the CAVC remand call for as evidence?

Is it on line yet at CAVC web site?

The citation in this link could help-different air base but still- shows you how these claims need lots of research.

http://www.ffrd.org/Agent_Orange/laosao.htm

"Also unconfirmed is herbicide use by Air America or the CIA, whose records are still closed.[33] In an April 1968 interview, the vice-president of Air America declared that his company had been contracted by the Department of Defense to defoliate vegetation in Vietnam, Laos, and southern Thailand, based from the Udon Thani airbase.[34] The 1971-3 opium destruction missions were probably carried out on this basis, and secondary sources also report that the CIA had spray mission capability.[35] Air Force records do not list any UC-123 aircraft at Udon Thani during this period, suggesting that other aircraft might have been used; however, 7 UC-123’s were present at the Nakhon Phanom airbase in 1970 and 1971, presumably for defoliation purposes.[36] Further research is needed to confirm the extent of additional herbicide use in Laos."

An individual who served at NKP thailand from August 1969 to August 1970 was granted service connection for immunoblastic lymphoma as secondary to agent orange exposure. This award was made by The Board Of Vetterans Affairs 06/16/99; Docket # 96-31 706A. This appeal and decision mirrors my appeal and claim in that I too was stationed at NKP Thailand From August 1969 through August 1970. I cited this in my appeal to the BVA but even though they said they considered the other veterans decision as related to my claim they deemed of course that this case could not be used as a precedent. I never really tried to use it as precedence or corroboration bu t I stated that I witnesse point by point the incidents of agent orange usage set forth in this appeal and ultimately approved claim. I of course have follicular lymphomas af the small messentary part of the small intestines. The BVA judge cited 38 CFR 3-309(a) which is for Chronic diseases that have a time period of one year after leaving the Service. I retired in 1981. Th e correct reference is 38 CFR 3-309(e) that cites among other cancers "non-hodgskins lymphoma" which has no time period. The Judge further stated he did not doubt my voracity or truthfulness....of course I was making statements under sworn testimony. My attemps to contact this veterna met with extreme resistance from the BVA....seems they had a responsibility to pursue this veteran to assist me in my claim. Gentleman from Las Cruces New Mexico (vietnam_war_vet) as used on hadit.com Dec 11, 2006 corroborated my exposure in corespondence with him by means of the hadit.com site. Stated he would prepare a letter supportin my claim and use the postings on hadit.com as an attachment.

[rthomass]

It IS the same air base-

"7 UC-123’s were present at the Nakhon Phanom airbase in 1970 and 1971, presumably for defoliation purposes.[36] Further research is needed to confirm the extent of additional herbicide use in Laos."

He could attempt to find more from the Gov under the FOIA on the UC 123s -all of Vietnam has been declassified.or could be with an FOIA request-

I forget -does he have an AO presumptive illness?

If he doesnt have that- this will be difficult but at least the court remamded it-

Maybe this is your claim? or are you helping a vet with it?

Berta this is indeed my claim that is before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (06-2225). I have been recently notified by my lawyer that in a telephonic confernce that the Va , Court and my counsel ;deemed a remand was in order. Trying to bolster my case once it gets back to the BVA. Have a statemnet from (vietnam_war_vet from the hadit.com web site) coroborating my claim statements as regards use of agent orange on and NKP as wel on a portion of the HO-Chi-Mihn trail across the Mekong river in Laos....directly opposite Nakhon Phanom Royal Thai Air Force Base. In addition we were attacked once while there and we had quie a lively fire fight.....My lawyer used this to state I was in direct combat etih the enemy....don't really know what is significant about this ? Will see the actual remand in 0ne to two months.

[Berta]

This all shows how much leg work you have done-

like that other Thailand AO vet-

You raised an extremely important point-that I do not believe any veteran ever raised before-

when the BVA makes a decision for a vet and another vet -with same time amd place- comes along to prove similiar claim-

the VA should be willing to contact the BVA vet for a buddy statement-especially in a case like yours-

They know the BVA vet's name and address---and there is no way anyone else can get it- only CAVC vets names and addresses are public-

Maybe the BVA could even be subpeonaed to give that info out-

after all in a court of law -everyone has the right to have witnesses-

and this Thailand vet is a witness to what you also experienced.

Do you have all of your SMRs and personnel records?

Could they possible contain names of others who also might provide buddy statements if needed?

I commend you on getting that remand-

it only makes sense that the AO was used not only to destroy cover for the enemy but also to keep even all of the airbase perimeters clear of weeds and brush.

[Philip Rogers]

I would think you could get, from the AF, the aircraft tail numbers of all aircraft outfitted w/the AO spraying equipment and then the flight logs from those aircraft that flew operation Ranch Hand, which should show where they took off and landed. I'm sure someone out there has that info, just like the huge resources the VN helicopter pilots assn has developed. Had an AF vet, in a group some years back, swear AO was used, in base perimeters, in England. He stated "he often wondered why no foliage grew in the perimeter wire areas." jmo

pr

[ronn]

Ask this group of thia AF vets Some have served there and will help if they can! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USARSUPTHAI/

I would think you could get, from the AF, the aircraft tail numbers of all aircraft outfitted w/the AO spraying equipment and then the flight logs from those aircraft that flew operation Ranch Hand, which should show where they took off and landed. I'm sure someone out there has that info, just like the huge resources the VN helicopter pilots assn has developed. Had an AF vet, in a group some years back, swear AO was used, in base perimeters, in England. He stated "he often wondered why no foliage grew in the perimeter wire areas." jmo

pr

[ronn]

Another more important group that you need to be aware of is TVVET, Thialand viet nam vets for equal treatment ,. The contact info i have is a wonderful lady by the name of Maryland Oliver . She has put togeather a cd that has many cases and evidence that will be invaluable to you with this. The cd is free just e-mail her at themamabear47@yahoo.com She is a true advocate and will responded quickly to your request. Hope this helps. Ron

Ask this group of thia AF vets Some have served there and will help if they can! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USARSUPTHAI/

[SLEDGE]

Much of the Thailand records have been 'modified' to show, or not show, whatever the government wants to show.

I have two different accounts of the same time frame.

One backs me up, that's the one that I found myself.

The other does not support my story at all, from the same historian at the same place and time.

It was found by the VA.

We worked on a few Nam planes, C-130's, at Ubon toward the middle part of 73.

They were all covered with oily stuff and smelled pretty bad.

When they had to set down at the nearest base for a quick fix, Ubon was the closest to the HO Trail at that latitude.

Ubon had the AC-130 Gunships, Spectre.

My records were classified until 1998.

sledge

[rthomass]

This all shows how much leg work you have done-

like that other Thailand AO vet-

You raised an extremely important point-that I do not believe any veteran ever raised before-

when the BVA makes a decision for a vet and another vet -with same time amd place- comes along to prove similiar claim-

the VA should be willing to contact the BVA vet for a buddy statement-especially in a case like yours-

They know the BVA vet's name and address---and there is no way anyone else can get it- only CAVC vets names and addresses are public-

Maybe the BVA could even be subpeonaed to give that info out-

after all in a court of law -everyone has the right to have witnesses-

and this Thailand vet is a witness to what you also experienced.

Do you have all of your SMRs and personnel records?

Could they possible contain names of others who also might provide buddy statements if needed?

I commend you on getting that remand-

it only makes sense that the AO was used not only to destroy cover for the enemy but also to keep even all of the airbase perimeters clear of weeds and brush.

Berta I firmly believe that the Veterans Board of Appals as well as the RO are bound by M21-1 to assist me on developing my claim. Contacting this individual by the Veterans Administration wopuld fall into that area. Sure would lik for VIKING17 TO GIVE HIS 2 CENTS worth on this..........Service Mediacal Records for NKP 69-70 would only show a operation for a double hernia; supposedly acute food poisoning ....so the doc said....AO ? Wonder...... The real answer is for me to come up with buddy letters..got one coming from a membet of this site vietnam_war_vet.

[Vike17]

rthomass,

I'm not sure if the VA were able to contact this veteran for you (the one that won his AO claim at, I think, the BVA) would ultimately lead to an award in your claim. Just the mere fact of this veteran backing up your account of the situation may not be enough.

I would go back to this veteran's decision and find out what evidence he used to prove that AO was used at your base. Since you two were there during the same time period, I assume the evidence he used to prove AO was used at this based would be sufficient in your claim. Remember, if you're able to prove this, it is just a portion of the claim. You would still need a nexus between that exposure in Thialand to the medical condition you currently have.

I'm sorry if I have repeated something someone else may have already stated or I'm entirely way off base on this, but I haven't read any of the decisions posted in this thread and just skimmed through some of the responses due to time contraints.

Vike 17

[rthomass]

VIKE17 Thank you for your inciteful comments. I cannot cite or tell what the veteran that won his claim used as evidence since the BVA and only the BVA knows who this individual is and what his transcript or arguments of his case were. This information is under the control of the BVA and as such either they or the local Va RO should have assisted me as part of their duty to develpe my claim; I after all pointed the decision (case) out to them and even provided them a complete copy of the decision.

I am in contact with a veteran staioned at NKP during this period and he corroborate my case. In addition he has agreed to send me a letter attesting to his post statements pertaining to the presence of agent orange at NKP during this period in time. Remember this is supposedly a non-adversarial process.......when in truth we are all lying SOB"s and our word is not worth a plugged nickle. This whole idea of the Secretary of Veteran Affairs' boots on the ground in Vietnam is flawed. Veterans that were in Thailand, Laos and Cambodia were a big part of the Vietnam war as well as the Blue Water Navy. Has anyone heard of ground water conatamination, wind, and troical storms? They all disperse he herbicides in South East Asia. The VA has the bat, ball, glove, and rules....and they play the game any way they want....It is the GI's nature to use all means to protect himself from the enemy and the VA has a lot to learn about the ingenuity of that GI. If they used it in Vietnam to reveal the enemy and provide clear fire zones; The GI's in Thailand, Laos and cambodia took it upon themselves to use it too; often without the knowlege of the brass.[/b]

Edited March 31, 2007 by rthomass (see edit history)

[rthomass]

Beating the NKP Thailand Bushes.......I need some one to come forward to give me a letter on Agent Orange usage at NKP especially during August 1969 to August 1970. BERTA; VIKE17 what is your views on BVA's responsibility to help develope my claim in regards to Their 1999 award decision?

[Vike17]

rthomass,

One must keep in mind that the VA must make "reasonable" attemps to assist the veteran with their claim. By telling the VA that you have a buddy that has personal knowledge of a certain injury or incident while you were in service and asking them to contact that individual is proabably totally different than telling the VA that someone who won their claim at the BVA who also doesn't know you or the injury or incident personally and could vouch for your contentions. Do you see the diference. I think in this instance you're too hung up on the "Duty to Assist" of VA.

In the end you need to find out what evidence this other veteran used to in his claim to prove he was actually exposed to AO.

"I cannot cite or tell what the veteran that won his claim used as evidence since the BVA and only the BVA knows who this individual is and what his transcript or arguments of his case were"

As you know BVA decisions are public records and anyone can look at them. The evidence and reasoning why the BVA granted this other veteran's claim is spelled out in their decision. The BVA or the VA in general for that matter isn't trying to hide anything!

"This information is under the control of the BVA and as such either they or the local Va RO should have assisted me as part of their duty to develpe my claim; I after all pointed the decision (case) out to them and even provided them a complete copy of the decision"

BVA decisions do not set precendence! This other veteran was granted service-connection for some residuals of AO exposure because he produced evidence that showed he was exposed. Just because you were at this base the same time he was, doesn't necassarily mean you were actually exposed to AO. You need to show that you were exposed to AO and no one else. This why I say you need to find out what evidence this other veteran used to prove exposure, which in turn may help prove your case. This, in the end, is your resposibility to do so becuase the VA only must make a reasonable effort.

"Remember this is supposedly a non-adversarial process.......when in truth we are all lying SOB"s and our word is not worth a plugged nickle. This whole idea of the Secretary of Veteran Affairs' boots on the ground in Vietnam is flawed. Veterans that were in Thailand, Laos and Cambodia were a big part of the Vietnam war as well as the Blue Water Navy"

Has the VA came out actually stated you are lying???? I think not! It never ceases to amaze how many people think the Government should just accept what they say as a truth. The Government cannot function this way when it comes to the different types of compensation that they offer. They system is already laced with fraud and if the Government just took everyone's word for it, there would be anarchy! The VA isn't saying you're flat out telling them a lie, they just need proof that you were exposed to AO, nothing more nothing less. Once you can show this, you'll receive your due compensation.

You also see the whole thing with the "boots on the ground" is flawed? How so? The VA and the Courts were so liberal when they implemented this. Any of the millions of service personal that served there can obtain compensation for the different ailments of being exposed to AO such as DMII, even though someone in particular wasn't actually exposed. Hell, some veteran that served there that wasn't actually exposed can still obtain service-connection for DMII even though it may be hereitary in his case or maybe he's now grossly over weight and that is the cause.

"The VA has the bat, ball, glove, and rules....and they play the game any way they want....It is the GI's nature to use all means to protect himself from the enemy and the VA has a lot to learn about the ingenuity of that GI"

The VA plays the "game" as to how the laws and regulation are set forth by the congress and the Court! The veteran actually has a lot to learn about how and why VA does things i.e. what are the laws, rules and regulations!

Vike 17

[rthomass]

VIKE17, I respect your views, however I am aware tha BVA decisions a published on the web are in the public forum but without the assistance of the BVA as to who the person is , what the transcript says or doe not say I cannot determine what the evidence actually is. the ease as to the ability of BVA to provide information seems to be well within the realm of their reasonable assistance to help develop a veterns case. This individual was as I said served at the same base and time frame as I did. I did not just pick any un-related case I picked a case that mirrors my experiences to the very method by which we were exposed to the herbicide "Agent Orange". I cannot establish this person does not know me because the BVA will not allow me the information to determine this. Beside if I knew who the person is and where he lived why would I need the BVA to assist me in developing my case in this instance I could do it myself.

As regards to "Boots on The Ground in Vietnam" is most certainly flawed..... per the decison of The United States Court of Appeal for Veterans Claims; reference Haas V. Nichoson.

It is inconceivable that since Agent Orange as well as other hebicide "carcinogens" that travel by wind currents, ground water and by prevailing winds that only Agent Orange could be present only within the borders of Vietnam. I do have an eye witness to the use of agent orange durint this time period at NKP.

Unfortunately I and many veterans disagree as to the non-adversarial aspect of the VA; is just not true in my experience with the loca VA and BVA.

I feel that the law as relates to the presumption of exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam is flawed in that it should read Sourth East Asia to include Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia. I have sent 540 letter arguing this to all the Senators and Representatives in the 110th Congrss. Veterans in Thailand, Laos and Cambodia as I stated before often in direct combat with enemy forces as evidence by many sapper attacks at Ubon, Udorn. Takli and even goof ole NKP.

You are right I have lot to learn on how the Veterans Administration works. A process as complicated and bureaucratic as the VA is indeed an enigma in itself. Perhaps that would explain a 600,000 case back log.

Perhaps you will concede from the 1999 Veterans Case that Agent Orange had to have been present somewhere on NKP during the time frame of August 1969 to August 1970 ?????? sine the BVA stated it was in their 1999 ruling. I for one know for a fact that C123's sprayed the HO-Chi Mihn trail just across the river from NKP in Laos; Oh yea wind, the river flow, and ground water never got contaminated ... right? I further know that our local CE and Air Police cleared our perimeer to afford a clear fire zone and enable them to pick off those pesky enemy pesonnel.

Despite the beliefs of some the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT and PLAUSIBILITY are still in the Veterans Administration regulation as cited in 38 C.F.R., Title 38 of the United States code as well ad th Va bible M21-1.........................

One final query and only because of my curiosity and your unwaivering support of the VA adjuducation procedures are you employed by the VA in any position having to do with claims and appeals.

Edited April 1, 2007 by rthomass (see edit history)

[allan]

>It never ceases to amaze how many people think the Government should just accept what they say as a truth.

We are learning how little truth has to do with operating a Government agency.

Hopefully, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs is better at it than the JUSTICE dept.

[Berta]

Vike said:

"You would still need a nexus between that exposure in Thialand to the medical condition you currently have."

Even if VA considered the other case- it could show that you were there under same conditions that the other vet was.And I certainly see that point being made-

But it would still take the medical evidence-a doctor's statement-

for the nexus because the VA could say others who served same time and place at this air base do not have AO disability-so the exposure has to be specific and confirmed-because AO is not presumptive for Thailand vets-

If your case was remanded from the court-the remand should state what the VA specifically needs at this point-

In your military personnel file I would imagine there are names of some officers and also your MOS was designated.There should be a way to contact individuals from your unit.

This remand of an Okinawa vet shows what the needs from him-

aooarently he handled barrels of AO- I think the first Okinawa vet AO claim that succeeded did too:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp04/files2/0410171.txt

I know the regs say VA must make "reasonable attempts" etc-but I would not put much weight on that-

I do see you point on the other BVA claim-

but you would have to prove that you were there then-same time and place as him and were also exposed.

"I do have an eye witness to the use of agent orange durint this time period at NKP."

Has this person made a statement yet to VA and can they testify you were where the AO was? and back that up with their own MOS?

(By the way what was your MOS)

[rthomass]

Berta my "MOS" or "AFSC" (air Force Specialy Code) was 65190 which is a senior purchasing and contracting specialist. If you reviews a cnversation betwen myself rthomass and Vietnam_war_vet posted 6 December 2006 you will see that I have a cooroboating veteran.

MY oncologist is giving me a letter. Additionally the nexus non-hodgskins lynphomas i.e folliculr lymphoma is cited in 38 CFR 3-309(e).....which was cited by the Acting Law Juge At BVA as 38 CFR 3-309(a).....this erroneous citation gives one year after discharge to submit a claim while 3-309(e) is open ended......perhaps the VA makes mistakes too.

Edited April 1, 2007 by rthomass (see edit history)