Ble Water Agent Orange Claim in Agent Orange, Heart Disease, Prostate and Parkinson's Forum

0 Points

Ble Water Agent Orange Claim

Author	Comment
Safari		#21	[url]	[-]
Posts: 294 Jun 21 12 3:57 PM	Buckeye Bill wrote: We should give the Blue Water Sailors all encouragement and support we can muster. I know when I came on this site a couple Vets gave me the support to continue on. While other vets didn't think a Blue Water Sailor deserved any support. Well I got approved and my ship is now on the presumptive list. Some vets think"boots on the ground" is their private ATM machine and no one else has the right to use it.............................. Well said Buckeye! I took the intent of this site as, "Vets helping Vets" just as the scrolling banner says. Congrats on getting your ship on the presumption list! Which ship? I was on a tin-can, Hopewell(DD681). I just filed my first claim for the presumption of exposure for DMII and hope to get Hopewell added to the list also. Only took two years to gather all the info and link everything from A to Z.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
crewchiefuh1h		#22	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1990 Jun 21 12 4:14 PM	Buckeye Bill wrote: We should give the Blue Water Sailors all encouragement and support we can muster. I know when I came on this site a couple Vets gave me the support to continue on. While other vets didn't think a Blue Water Sailor deserved any support. Well I got approved and my ship is now on the presumptive list. Some vets think"boots on the ground" is their private ATM machine and no one else has the right to use it.............................. I don't think that is true...tho it might appear that way. It is the VA saying "boots on the ground", not us; and it is this man trying to prove "boots on the ground". If your ship is on a "presumptives" list and doesn't require "boots on the ground" for exposure to Agent Orange/herbicides that is one thing, but apparently his ship is not. Thus he is going to have to prove "boots on the ground". My own personal opinion, like it or not, is that a quick parts run to shore by plane/helo, is really pushing the concept of "boots on the ground". But if he can prove it, it qualifies. I have empathy for the man, as he served like we all did, and tried to offer a different track that he might concider if his case fit the bill. Ships on the VA list: http://veteransinfo.tripod.com/newlistofships.pdf Edited 1 time by crewchiefuh1h Jun 21 12 6:24 PM.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
cruiser		#23	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17423 Jun 21 12 10:57 PM	ratson wrote: Sounds like a reasonable doubt. Appeal to BVA. If they deny it, get a good lawyer and take it to the Court of Veterans appeals. This is a misconception about how the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims works, or any Federal Court of Appeals for that matter. They do not re-adjudicate the claim and make a new decision on the merits of the claim like the BVA. The Court looks at how the claim was handled to insure that all due process rights were applied, they look to see that all laws and regulations were properly interpreted and applied, and that the decision was not arbitrary and capricious. What the Court does not do is to substitute it's judgement for that of the BVA in cases where BVA made a decision that it was legally authorized to make in accordance with the law. In a case like this there is no legally recognized disagreement at this point about what constitutes service in Vietnam when it comes to the Agent Orange law. This has been settled in prior court cases. In this case it would be a simple case of weighing the evidence to see if the evidence shows that the OP was actually on the ground in Vietnam. However BVA weighs the evidence will be OK with the Court as long as the final decision wasn't arbitrary and capricious. There is really no new ground to be broken in a case like this. In other words, let's say that the OP submits a buddy statement supporting his claim, but BVA assigns little weight to that statement and instead leans heavily on the absence of any other documentation that supports the claim; and as a result denies the claim. The Court will not step in and re-weigh that evidence and say that the Court gives more weight to the buddy statement; therefore, the decision is overturned. This will be true even if the Court doesn't agree with BVA. If you review Court cases you will find cases where the Court will go so far as to say that it doesn't necessarily agree with the BVA decision, but finds nothing to suggest that BVA was wrong in arriving at that decision; therefore, it will let the BVA decision stand. Remember, the Court isn't a higher level BVA. It functions on an entirely different plane and does not do the same thing that BVA does. Like I said, the Court does not re-adjudicate the claim. It just makes sure that all of your legal rights were preserved when the lower level decision was made. Cruiser
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
BROVET		#24	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3496 Jun 22 12 8:54 AM	AO presumtives were determined by the VA and apply to all that qualify. If folks don't qualify for a presumptive, they can file a claim and run it up the flag pole. However, I take issue with Buckeye's statement of "Some vets think"boots on the ground" is their private ATM machine and no one else has the right to use it..............................". A lot of combat vets who spent the better part of their year in the jungle, sleeping in the bush, drinking water from the streams, etc. read some of the rationale for AO coverage and (even though absolutely legal) think the whole thing is out of balance. AO was spayed in the jungle, not on the bases or on ships. So, when you get some ground pounder who takes issue with the BW claims, understand where they are coming from. A Co. 2nd/2nd 1st Infantry 11/66-11/67
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
nmfxstc		#25	[url]	[-]
Posts: 25190 Jun 22 12 10:48 AM	Safari wrote: Buckeye Bill wrote: We should give the Blue Water Sailors all encouragement and support we can muster. I know when I came on this site a couple Vets gave me the support to continue on. While other vets didn't think a Blue Water Sailor deserved any support. Well I got approved and my ship is now on the presumptive list. Some vets think"boots on the ground" is their private ATM machine and no one else has the right to use it.............................. Well said Buckeye! I took the intent of this site as, "Vets helping Vets" just as the scrolling banner says. Congrats on getting your ship on the presumption list! Which ship? I was on a tin-can, Hopewell(DD681). I just filed my first claim for the presumption of exposure for DMII and hope to get Hopewell added to the list also. Only took two years to gather all the info and link everything from A to Z. OK, so the Hopewell ISN'T on the list? Did you have (and can you definitively prove) the "boots on the ground" issue? See....I make no sense out of anyone filing a claim if the ship isn't listed and the "boots" not evidenced! Now, that is what bogs the "system" down, Bro! Fillean meal ar an meallaire.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
crewchiefuh1h		#26	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1990 Jun 22 12 4:32 PM	VAWAME wrote: I was stationed on a carrier, but made a flight to get parts one time to DaNang. My only 'Boots on the Ground'. I have a Buddy letter stating this fact, but VA states that they can find no record of it. Everything I have found on line has NO details at that level. Squadron records are not kept that far back, and ship logs do not record to that detail. Has 'ANYONE' had experience with this type of issue? I can use all the help I can get... http://bluewaternavy.org/claims/Citation%20Nr%200810946.pdf The RO originally denied service connection because the veteran had been shown to have served in a deep water vessel (a battleship) offshore, but not to have actually served in or visited the Republic of Vietnam. However, in conjunction with his testimony before the Board, the veteran produced a letter dated in August 2007 signed by the former commanding officer of the USS New Jersey. The letter asserts that the author of the letter specifically remembers the veteran having been present on the captain's gig going ashore in December 1968. The Board is not required to accept a veteran's uncorroborated account of his active service experiences. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 192 (1991). However, the Board finds that the August 2007 letter by the veteran's former commanding officer provides independent corroboration of the veteran's account that he was physically present in the Republic of Vietnam in December 1968. As the veteran now is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange, and has a disease for which Agent Orange is the presumptive cause, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus are met. ORDER Service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus is granted. ____________________________________________ STEPHEN L. WILKINS Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affair Edited 1 time by crewchiefuh1h Jun 22 12 4:46 PM.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
stcroixvid		#27	[url]	[-]
Posts: 35 Jun 22 12 6:30 PM	What happened in this case is the carrier was extended on line and we already had one of our four plane cannibalized for parts and the second plane returned with from flight operations with faulty electronics leaving only two planes flying that night. VAW-112 and other VAW squadrons are the first planes launched (at least in 1966-67) at sea because we are the electronic eyes of the carrier. Usually we replenished spare parts in Subic bay. We were required to have two planes in the air during flight ops at once. This sailor was the maintenance office person who took care of all squadron requisition parts for the VAW-112. It boiled down to him or me going for the parts with the pilot, and he was senior. I was there and watched him get on the E-2A plane, and was frankly jealous, because I wanted to go. The plane they launched to go to Danang AFB was the plane who was cannibalized of key electronic parts, but other wise was fine to fly. We were part of a three carrier task force and were flying nights that week, and we sent the plane into Danang after finishing our ops in the north while steaming back to the South for the day.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
crewchiefuh1h		#28	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1990 Jun 22 12 6:36 PM	stcroixvid wrote: What happened in this case is the carrier was extended on line and we already had one of our four plane cannibalized for parts and the second plane returned with from flight operations with faulty electronics leaving only two planes flying that night. VAW-112 and other VAW squadrons are the first planes launched (at least in 1966-67) at sea because we are the electronic eyes of the carrier. Usually we replenished spare parts in Subic bay. We were required to have two planes in the air during flight ops at once. This sailor was the maintenance office person who took care of all squadron requisition parts for the VAW-112. It boiled down to him or me going for the parts with the pilot, and he was senior. I was there and watched him get on the E-2A plane, and was frankly jealous, because I wanted to go. The plane they launched to go to Danang AFB was the plane who was cannibalized of key electronic parts, but other wise was fine to fly. We were part of a three carrier task force and were flying nights that week, and we sent the plane into Danang after finishing our ops in the north while steaming back to the South for the day. With your testimony and referencing the above citation in my previous post, it would appear to make a good case and meet the criteria. Hopefully Cruiser and others can weigh in on this and guide you better. Edited 1 time by crewchiefuh1h Jun 22 12 6:46 PM.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Safari		#29	[url]	[-]
Posts: 294 Jun 22 12 7:34 PM	nmfxstc wrote: Safari wrote: Buckeye Bill wrote: We should give the Blue Water Sailors all encouragement and support we can muster. I know when I came on this site a couple Vets gave me the support to continue on. While other vets didn't think a Blue Water Sailor deserved any support. Well I got approved and my ship is now on the presumptive list. Some vets think"boots on the ground" is their private ATM machine and no one else has the right to use it.............................. Well said Buckeye! I took the intent of this site as, "Vets helping Vets" just as the scrolling banner says. Congrats on getting your ship on the presumption list! Which ship? I was on a tin-can, Hopewell(DD681). I just filed my first claim for the presumption of exposure for DMII and hope to get Hopewell added to the list also. Only took two years to gather all the info and link everything from A to Z. OK, so the Hopewell ISN'T on the list? Did you have (and can you definitively prove) the "boots on the ground" issue? See....I make no sense out of anyone filing a claim if the ship isn't listed and the "boots" not evidenced! Now, that is what bogs the "system" down, Bro! "OK, so the Hopewell ISN'T on the list?" No, Hopewell is not on the list, YET! As a matter of fact, there was no list until a few years ago. Maybe you were aware of that or perhaps not. A few facts are certain though. AO contained highly toxic compounds that poisoned 10's of thousands of US military personnel, to say nothing of the indigenous population, and that poisoning did not stop at the abbreviated circumscription of the boundaries established by the VA derived via cost analysis, in part. That is a matter of record! *"Did you have (and can you definitively prove) the "boots on the ground" issue?"* If "boots on the ground" were the SOLE factor to be considered, then many of the ships on that list would be eliminated. My claim proved through OFFICIAL NAVY DOCUMENTATION that Hopewell was within the "internal waters" (inland waters by VA redefinition), as defined by international treaties, US statute, US regulations and existing VA regulation and rules. "Boots on the ground" is not the SOLE determinant of presumption, which should be apparent by the number of combat ships on that list along with the information provided. *"See....I make no sense out of anyone filing a claim if the ship isn't listed and the "boots" not evidenced!"* 1. If a ship isn't listed now, it is illogical to believe all other Navy vessels are forever banned from that list. 2. As already noted above, "boots" are not the only consideration for presumption. 3. What makes no sense to me is that some folks will just never accept #1 & #2 above, and seem to make no effort to become better informed. This is the second time for me dealing with this, and I'm taking this opportunity now to help dispel this "boots" myth as the SOLE criteria for presumption of exposure. *"Now, that is what bogs the "system" down, Bro!"* I take GREAT umbrage with the direction, tone and intent of your statements. I'll take the rest of my comments off-line here and PM you after I cool off a bit. Or you could just boot me and the other Navy Vet rabble off this board for having such temerity to clog up this board and the VA claims system, too.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
crewchiefuh1h		#30	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1990 Jun 22 12 8:32 PM	Safari, there is certain criteria to meet. The idea of someone putting in for AO exposure who doesn't meet the criteria, but hoping to force the VA to change the criteria doesn't seem the right thing to do. They should work to change the criteria and then submit a claim. Would be like me putting in for diabetes without meeting the criterial. If i want to be diagnosised as a diabetic at two readings of 115...I should get the criteria changed first, rather than trying to get it changed by using up the VA's time and resources with a claim that doesn't fit.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Safari	crewchief	#31	[url]	[-]
Posts: 294 Jun 22 12 9:14 PM	I agree with you 100%! But that was not what was being brought forward by the person to whom I responded. This was not our first freakin' rodeo. I let the first pass without comment AFTER I had given a complete description, with supporting documentation regarding presumption TWICE! Hence, the origin of my absolute IRE NOW! It took me TWO FREAKIN' YEARS to find the documentation that placed my ship in the Mekong River delta providing 5" gunfire support to the Marines ashore and to link that with an obscure VA directive that CONFIRMED the presumption of exposure. NOT FOR ME ALONE, BY GOD, BUT FOR THOSE WITH WHOM I SERVED ON HOPEWELL. And every soldier and BY GOD MARINE that was kept from perishing in that armpit of the world to go home and know and love their own children and grandchildren by what MY SHIP could provide in their need of the moment should count for some pittance of consideration! Perhaps I should just delete the VNE board from my favorites because this does not seem to be a place where "Vets helping Vets" is truly the main purpose. Human nature perhaps; "I got mine so stay outa' my way while I go for more." Phuch that SHIT! (reversion to Navy speak)
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
crewchiefuh1h		#32	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1990 Jun 22 12 9:35 PM	I believe that there is a lot more at play in this discussion than just boots on the ground. I think we can mix in another thread, and ask at the same time, did the man who just spent a few hours a DaNang Air Base actually get exposed to agent orange...or could his 2 conditions have been a natural occurence of aging. In my own case, prostate cancer is a common disease of old men. Did i develope it from agent orange or old age. It is a 50/50 question. But the criteria says, that having boots on the ground in RVN is enough to presume exposure to Agent Orange. In my case, I was there for 1 1/2 years, he was there for a few hours. But to be fair to all vets, the .gov and VA says anytime spent within the boundary of RVN constituted exposure. In my search, I have found that pilots who's only contact with the boundary of RVN was high altitude air space, do not qualify as being exposed. That is no more unfair to them than it is to say someone XX miles off coast with no incursions into the RVN boundary doesn't qualiry. You proved that your ship was inland...that is good. It is not this board or it's members keeping it off the list. These men are trying to help veterans who need help and meet the criteria, while at the same time guarding against people who would take advantage of the system. In this man's case, his OP stated one time with no documentation...it can be 50/50 that he did or that he didn't. It may not seem to be fair, but to guard against rampant fraud, it may be neccessary that actual cases may not be approved. Again, not the fault of this board or these members. As you can see, I found a prior case that may apply to this man, as he has a fellow vet who corraborates his account.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
pipes		#33	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12 Jun 22 12 10:19 PM	I'm not too impartial on this boots on the ground as I'm trying to prove my several days in Da Nang. But what should the criteria be: a week, a month or a year. Maybe the criteria should be limited to those who were in the mud and forget all those in support functions. Or maybe it should be limited to those that can actually prove exposure. But no, the current criteria recognizes anyone with service in the RVN including me. I just have to prove it. Some laws are not equitable and boots on the ground may be one but it's the criteria used by the VA. If you don't like the criteria, argue that issue don't question those who have a presumptive disease, meet the service in RVN requirement and file for disability benefits.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Safari	crewchief	#34	[url]	[-]
Posts: 294 Jun 22 12 11:19 PM	I fully take you point, and understand that position. I have understood MOST of it, lacking some of the additional details you have just provided, from the git-go. But that is not the issue at point. If you cannot see my position after I have laid it out, may God Bless you. The other poster, to whom I responded, directed his post to ME and, by association, other Navy veterans. What the Hell were we back in the day and today, chopped freakin' liver? This person is one of the poobah's of this board and appears to cast disdain over other vets who served in the Navy. Yeah I proved my ship had gained presumption, but for some other vets, we don't have the scalps hanging from our belts and the tops of our muddy boots so somehow we are not as worthy and we need to be pushed aside as an obstruction for the needs of the truly worthy with the muddy boots! Piss on that BS! BTW, crewchief, Welcome home and thank you for your service, brother!
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
ratson		#35	[url]	[-]
Posts: 423 Jun 23 12 12:00 AM	Nmfxstc, It is an at least as likely as not claim. The likely is his witness who was aboard the ship. As not is the VA has no record that he was aboard the ship. I had an at least as likely as not claim and it was denied by the RO,. Later it was granted by the BVA.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
nmfxstc		#36	[url]	[-]
Posts: 25190 Jun 23 12 2:58 AM	Safari wrote: I agree with you 100%! But that was not what was being brought forward by the person to whom I responded. This was not our first freakin' rodeo. I let the first pass without comment AFTER I had given a complete description, with supporting documentation regarding presumption TWICE! Hence, the origin of my absolute IRE NOW! It took me TWO FREAKIN' YEARS to find the documentation that placed my ship in the Mekong River delta providing 5" gunfire support to the Marines ashore and to link that with an obscure VA directive that CONFIRMED the presumption of exposure. NOT FOR ME ALONE, BY GOD, BUT FOR THOSE WITH WHOM I SERVED ON HOPEWELL. And every soldier and BY GOD MARINE that was kept from perishing in that armpit of the world to go home and know and love their own children and grandchildren by what MY SHIP could provide in their need of the moment should count for some pittance of consideration! (OK....now you have evidence of being inland on the river? Maybe I missed that, but if that is the case, and you have the documentation, VA has to go along! I don't see the issue in that case, so why the denials? Can you post exactly what VA said and why they denied?) Perhaps I should just delete the VNE board from my favorites because this does not seem to be a place where "Vets helping Vets" is truly the main purpose. Human nature perhaps; "I got mine so stay outa' my way while I go for more." Phuch that SHIT! (reversion to Navy speak) Fillean meal ar an meallaire.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
nmfxstc		#37	[url]	[-]
Posts: 25190 Jun 23 12 3:01 AM	Safari wrote: nmfxstc wrote: Safari wrote: Buckeye Bill wrote: We should give the Blue Water Sailors all encouragement and support we can muster. I know when I came on this site a couple Vets gave me the support to continue on. While other vets didn't think a Blue Water Sailor deserved any support. Well I got approved and my ship is now on the presumptive list. Some vets think"boots on the ground" is their private ATM machine and no one else has the right to use it.............................. Well said Buckeye! I took the intent of this site as, "Vets helping Vets" just as the scrolling banner says. Congrats on getting your ship on the presumption list! Which ship? I was on a tin-can, Hopewell(DD681). I just filed my first claim for the presumption of exposure for DMII and hope to get Hopewell added to the list also. Only took two years to gather all the info and link everything from A to Z. OK, so the Hopewell ISN'T on the list? Did you have (and can you definitively prove) the "boots on the ground" issue? See....I make no sense out of anyone filing a claim if the ship isn't listed and the "boots" not evidenced! Now, that is what bogs the "system" down, Bro! "OK, so the Hopewell ISN'T on the list?" No, Hopewell is not on the list, YET! As a matter of fact, there was no list until a few years ago. Maybe you were aware of that or perhaps not. A few facts are certain though. AO contained highly toxic compounds that poisoned 10's of thousands of US military personnel, to say nothing of the indigenous population, and that poisoning did not stop at the abbreviated circumscription of the boundaries established by the VA derived via cost analysis, in part. That is a matter of record! *"Did you have (and can you definitively prove) the "boots on the ground" issue?"* If "boots on the ground" were the SOLE factor to be considered, then many of the ships on that list would be eliminated. My claim proved through OFFICIAL NAVY DOCUMENTATION that Hopewell was within the "internal waters" (inland waters by VA redefinition), as defined by international treaties, US statute, US regulations and existing VA regulation and rules. "Boots on the ground" is not the SOLE determinant of presumption, which should be apparent by the number of combat ships on that list along with the information provided. *"See....I make no sense out of anyone filing a claim if the ship isn't listed and the "boots" not evidenced!"* 1. If a ship isn't listed now, it is illogical to believe all other Navy vessels are forever banned from that list. 2. As already noted above, "boots" are not the only consideration for presumption. 3. What makes no sense to me is that some folks will just never accept #1 & #2 above, and seem to make no effort to become better informed. This is the second time for me dealing with this, and I'm taking this opportunity now to help dispel this "boots" myth as the SOLE criteria for presumption of exposure. *"Now, that is what bogs the "system" down, Bro!"* I take GREAT umbrage with the direction, tone and intent of your statements. I'll take the rest of my comments off-line here and PM you after I cool off a bit. Or you could just boot me and the other Navy Vet rabble off this board for having such temerity to clog up this board and the VA claims system, too. (1. I WAS Navy!; 2: "Boots" certainly includes the Brown Water folks....if the evidence is there...if not, I stand by my comments; 3: I do not have any authority to "boot" anyone! Fillean meal ar an meallaire.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
nmfxstc		#38	[url]	[-]
Posts: 25190 Jun 23 12 3:10 AM	Safari wrote: I fully take you point, and understand that position. I have understood MOST of it, lacking some of the additional details you have just provided, from the git-go. But that is not the issue at point. If you cannot see my position after I have laid it out, may God Bless you. The other poster, to whom I responded, directed his post to ME and, by association, other Navy veterans. What the Hell were we back in the day and today, chopped freakin' liver? This person is one of the poobah's of this board and appears to cast disdain over other vets who served in the Navy. (My position here is the same as anyone's...we are all the same,. My tour in Nam was NAVY...I just happened to be assigned to the USMC as an HM3!) Yeah I proved my ship had gained presumption, but for some other vets, we don't have the scalps hanging from our belts and the tops of our muddy boots so somehow we are not as worthy and we need to be pushed aside as an obstruction for the needs of the truly worthy with the muddy boots! Piss on that BS! (Lose the attitude, Bro...that ain't gonna get ya much support here or anywhere!) BTW, crewchief, Welcome home and thank you for your service, brother! Fillean meal ar an meallaire.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
pipes		#39	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12 Jun 23 12 5:34 AM	Just saw this article on CNN.com. Same concept should/could apply to AO claims. But until then the present criteria is the one all veterans have to meet. Review recommends combat pay be based on level of danger By Chris Lawrence The days of American troops living on luxurious bases, hanging out at the coffee shop, attending dance parties and still earning full combat pay may be coming to an end. The Pentagon is considering changes to combat pay that could result in a tiered system, based on how much danger the service member is actually in. The new recommendations come from an independent review ordered by President Barack Obama in 2010, the Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LouF		#40	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12935 Jun 23 12 8:02 AM 10,000 plus post...	Calm it down guys, this is turning into a pissing contest. The BVA has approved many of these types of claims. The RO is stuck to the letter of the law. The really best answer is to appeal and as Cruiser has said the BVA is far more generous than the RO can be. Lou SSG Santa Fe NM 4/21 11LIB Americal 1/69-8/70 50% PTSD 60% IHD 100% IU P&T
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote

Yuku free message boards

Link to VBN User Agreement. By Using VBN, You agree to ALL TERMS.

Ble Water Agent Orange Claim

VBN User Agreement

About VBN