Search this Topic:
Jul 15 11 9:08 PM
Jul 15 11 9:40 PM
Chiefhouse wrote:GreetingsI submitted a claim for DMII for herbicides exposture for being stationed at NKP and Korat Thailand in 1970 & 1972. I was a fuels specialist who refuled aircraft with JP4 and serviced ground support equipment, light-alls, and generators with gasoline/diesel fuel all around the base including the perimeters. I submitted performance records, job description and decorations/awards but my claim was denied. What gives? Best RegardsChiefhouse
Jul 19 11 6:40 PM
Jul 19 11 8:25 PM
Jul 20 11 2:25 PM
Aug 3 11 4:13 PM
Aug 4 11 3:23 AM
You are correct, there are no presumptive measures for Military in Thailand unless you were involved in security of bases or camps in the country.
Jan 20 12 1:48 PM
Jan 25 12 3:24 PM
Jan 26 12 3:12 AM
I had 4 brothers who were in Vietnam and as I said, all the vets deserve equal treatment , including vets like myself and you too
Jan 29 12 2:31 AM
I had 4 brothers who were in Vietnam and as I said, all the vets deserve equal treatment , including vets like myself and you tooYou have equal treatment. Equal to anyone else that didn't serve in Vietnam. Those folks have to prove exposure, just like everyone else.
Jan 29 12 4:15 AM
Waitin on the Train wrote:SteamJockey wrote:
I had 4 brothers who were in Vietnam and as I said, all the vets deserve equal treatment , including vets like myself and you tooYou have equal treatment. Equal to anyone else that didn't serve in Vietnam. Those folks have to prove exposure, just like everyone else. Well Sir, I certainly did serve in VN. On two seperate occasions I was TDY to VN. The problem seems to be that no tdy orders are part of your permanent record. It would seem that the US Army considered our service to be of such small consequence, that retention of travel orders were not a part of policy. If the boots on ground policy was revised to include only Infantry and any units deployed in the feild, you would find that 75 % of people assigned to VN would not be able to provide any proof at all of exposure since they were there in a support role only and not of combat arms mos. For every soldier in the feild there were 3 soldiers supporting him in the rear echelons. That may be true, but the government has determined that "boots on the ground", not combat arms MOS is the criteria for "presumptive exposure". I feel my service to this nation is just as important and notable as any who served in southeast asia and isn't diminished at all by the negative and selfserving opinions expressed by some here. No one, I repeat, no one has questioned or diminished your service and it is as honorable as any one else's. I served honorably for 2 tours in southeast asia and consider my service to be just as deserving as any. I am positive that there are many Thai Vets who are of the same viewpoint as I, because proximity of threat surely would include many who are being overlooked and denied the benefits they so richly deserve who served within the theater of operations. "Threat" is not an issue in this thread...herbicide exposure is and those who can prove that direct exposure to an herbicide will readily have a claim for illness as a result of that exposure.
Jan 29 12 11:09 AM
SteamJockey wrote:.......The AO Act does not differentiate between commercial and tactical herbicides. It just says herbicide. ......
Jan 29 12 12:28 PM
The AO Act does not mention herbicides at all.
Jan 29 12 2:44 PM
SteamJockey wrote:The AO Act does not mention herbicides at all.There are over 16 entries in the AO Act containing some form of the word herbicide. Perhaps you might want to share some of that good $h!t you're smoking.Try reading for comprehension.http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/laws/PL102-4.asp
Jan 29 12 3:30 PM
daklander wrote:SteamJockey wrote:The AO Act does not mention herbicides at all.There are over 16 entries in the AO Act containing some form of the word herbicide. Perhaps you might want to share some of that good $h!t you're smoking.Try reading for comprehension.http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/laws/PL102-4.aspYou should have specified the AO Act of 1991, shouldn't you have?Read HR 812 and S 1629. Both are AO Acts.You see SJ, there are others that come to mind first and foremost for many other people.There is absolutely no reason for you to bring up any thing such as the "good $h!t smoking". Since the only drugs I take are taken to control the Multiple Myeloma and Osteonectosis of the Jaw your statement is a direct affront and a direct attack on my character.
Jan 29 12 5:48 PM
Jan 29 12 6:54 PM
Jan 29 12 7:09 PM
Jan 29 12 7:53 PM
I was reading on the internet about the spraying of AO. It said that the drift of the spraying was about six miles.
© 2013 Yuku. All rights reserved.