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

[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

[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

[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.