VICTORY FOR "BLUE WATER NAVY" IN AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE

CASE -- U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims says VA's current "boots on the ground" definition of "service in the Republic of Vietnam" is "plainly erroneous...and unreasonable,

and must be SET ASIDE."

Here is a link to the decision:

http://www.bluewaternavy.org/

Time to contact Congress and complain. What is the use to have a U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims if the politicians can simply over ride the actions made!

Please see your veterans organization service officer and work with them to get the Agent Orange Equity Act passed!

New actions must be taken and this topic name has been changed to reflect the issues.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DaveBarker,

The appeals court threw out the VA "in-country" position last week. Time to reopen the AO Blue Water claims. See your veterans organization service officer.
I submitted the following statement with every Blue water Navy claim I filed since the VA sudden change in policy upon the regulation of “in-country status” by VA Counsel after diabetes type 2 was recognized in November 2000.
Here it is:
Probably the most divided group of veterans in the history of America is the beleaguered Vietnam veteran. This group of veterans were generally rejected by the American people early in the war that none of them started. Most of those serving in Vietnam from 1959 through the literal end of the war were patriotic young people who desired to defend the United States from her enemies. Sometimes the young veteran would have a problem of sorting out just who was the enemy. In Vietnam, the natives who worked during the day turned into the guerilla at night.
We also had the enemy at home. Those who protested the war for one reason or another.
Many of those were prominent politicians, actors and education leaders. There positions were well choreographed to make those serving look as they were interfering with the chosen lifestyle of the Vietnamese people. When in reality the Vietnamese people were being terrorized by their Communist brethren.
We also have the problem of those veterans who separate themselves as ‘in-country’ and those called ‘Era vets’ a situation not seen during WWII or the Korean war. In the years I have worked with veterans this one issue of were you ‘in-country’ has caused a great schism in the ranks of those who served from 1959 to 1975.
When the Vietnam veteran returned home they discovered many health problems those who did not go to Vietnam did not suffer. These veterans went to the Veterans Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs) and made attempts to discover the common link to those problems. It was not long before herbicide exposure was the culprit. For reasons never fully explained the VA rejected nearly every idea put forth from this group of veterans. Even their fellow veterans from other conflicts rejected their quest for answers.
Over two decades we sought information to link herbicide exposure and the health problems which were taking lives at early ages in this select group. It appeared the more research by the supporters of the Vietnam veterans, the more resistance by the government and some of the veterans of prior conflicts. It was not until the San Francisco District Court Of Appeals ruling in which Agent Orange went to trial in San Francisco and was found guilty. On May 3, 1989 in the U.S. District Court, the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson held that former Veterans Administration head, Thomas K. Turnage had imposed "an impermissibly demanding test" for determining whether an ailment could be linked to dioxin. A position many of us had stated for over a decade.
The ruling was not appealed by the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This has opened the doors for new opportunities for those who have been maimed by this, the deadliest of man made synthetic chemical compounds, TCDD or as we know it Agent Orange. Multiple Thousands of claims nearly 34,000, at that time had been denied over the years. So in the next decade the VA established regulations concerning diseases and exposure. The regulations have been changed as new diseases were recognized. In the early 1990’s those who were in the adjacent waters to Vietnam were presumed exposed. When diabetes type 2 was recognized in November of 2000, the regulations were revisited by those in the legal departments of the VA. The presumption of exposure to herbicides was changed by the VA..
The VA has denied many claims since mid 2001, stating the veteran was not exposed due to the fact he did not go ashore. This is an incorrect assumption based on economics and not fact. The current Agent Orange exposure in-country regulation:
“(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1112)
(6) Diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents. (i) For the purposes of this section, the term ``herbicide agent'' means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the period
beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, specifically: 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD; cacodylic acid; and picloram.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1116(a)(4))
(ii) The diseases listed at Sec. 3.309(e) shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, except that chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy shall have
become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service.
(iii) A veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. The last date on which such a veteran shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent shall be the last date on which he or she served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975. ‘Service in the Republic of Vietnam’ includes service in the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam.”
When a person is within the geographical or territorial limits of the land mass, that person is considered by international law within the nation. There are recorded incidents of U.S. warships being seized (USS Pueblo 1968) and U.S. fishing vessels (Peru 1964), as well as the US Navy boarding Russian vessels (Cuba 1962). Thus my position has been accepted as law, by the Executive Branch of the United States of America. There are no provisions in Title 38 of the United States Code, for any department, agency or division to deny due process under accepted treaty, law or regulations of the United States of America.

quote:

There are no provisions in Title 38 of the United States Code, for any department, agency or division to deny due process under accepted treaty, law or regulations of the United States of America.

I thought that was worth repeating!

WELL Put and it does bear repeating-

This news could affect thousands of men and women who were in South China Sea from 1962-1975.
I say add AO as potential cause of ANY disability you have-whether on the AO presumptive list or not-

Haas- I believe he was undiagnosed in the mil with DMII-no follow up to abnormal glucose reading in his SMRS, and here this vet could have filed within year after discharge for a day after discharge EED for direct DM II SC long ago-maybe---

So much for the way Feres Doctrine screwed it all up-as to a vet's potential DAD EED-also VA WatchDog Larry has a good legal assessment as to this decision at the VA Watchdog site.

I guess denied Blue Waters have to re-open-
the ROs dont even send out VCAA letters in many cases (setting up a BVA Remand) so the vets affected by this have to re-open on their own-unless VA contacts them-

Thanks for getting this info out fast at Military.com Berta from hadit.com

Thanks Berta for your support!

Intercepted Message:
From Mr. Smithson of VFW--

"As I'm sure you know, VA has information from DoD verifying AO spraying in Thailand in 1964 & 65. Veterans who were in these areas at that time have been successful with claims. However, as far as the Haas case is concerned, we are advising our representatives to file claims for those who served in Thailand and received the VSM. Not sure yet how it will play out but it can be reasonably argued that the ruling in Haas also applies to those veterans as well. Also, VA may end up appealing this decision to the Federal Circuit Court. There are still a lot of unknowns. I have included the guidance (below) we are providing to our representatives on veterans who served in Thailand.

Even if the veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal for service in a location other than Vietnam (such as Thailand), their representatives should still apply for service connection, since the M21-1 provision does not outright prohibit application of the Agent Orange presumption in such case. This type of claim may be difficult to win but should be filed.

For denied claims still pending before the VA or before the CAVC: If the veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal (or the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Vietnam)), for service offshore of the Republic of Vietnam (that was not just over flight duty), the advocate should appeal any denials of service connection (and severances of service connection) and argue before the VA (or the Court) that service connection should be granted under the M21-1 provision and Haas. Even if the veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal for service in a location other than Vietnam (such as Thailand), he/she should still appeal."

"I know you have been involved with this issue for a long time and this is a really important Court case.

Some more of our guidance is provided below. Note the reference to the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM (Vietnam). I've have also included our guidance on those who had offshore Naval service but did not receive the VSM or AFEM (Vietnam).

If the veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal (or its predecessor award, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) (Vietnam)), for service offshore the Republic of Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, that was not just overflight duty, the advocate should argue that service connection should be granted under the M21-1 provision and Haas.

Finally, even if the veteran did not receive the Vietnam Service Medal or the AFEM, the advocate should apply for service connection if the veteran had offshore Naval service during the above periods. This is because the M21-1 provision does not preclude service connection as long as it is verified that the veteran had service offshore of Vietnam.

If the veteran did not receive the Vietnam Service Medal or predecessor award, the veteran should appeal the denial of service connection or severance action if he or she had offshore Naval service during the above
periods. "

Taura

I still don't understand why all those who served during the VNE are not considered for these benefits. My dad never left stateside during WWII and even though I was trained 11B1P, I never left stateside either.

Retired Master Chief with 13 months off the coast of Viet Nam and 3 touchdowns by chopper in-country without my "feet on the ground". Whether I was killed by the Migs that plotted an attack course to our ship (they were shot down and otherwise deterred from their efforts)or killed in the chopper (which was "on the ground") I'd still be dead in the service of my country. Not everyone who served and died "with feet on the ground" wsere killed by VC. As in any 'Combat Area" U.S. military peoople get killed or injured by accident. Do we disallow their Veteran status?

Missouriboy MCPO 30 years U.S. Navy

I served aboard the USS Midway(CVA-41) during 1971 and 1972. It is nice to know the VA has been told that I was in Vietnam. Now I need to have someone tell the VA that there is no time limit on when MS will develope after my time in the service. At the moment the VA arbitrarily sets 7 years as the limit for developing MS after service. It's too bad the VA did not tell my disease that it could not occur after 7 years. I do hope that all the sailors and marines this decision affects are able to finally get their just rewards.

quote:

Originally posted by Hayesml47:
I served aboard the USS Midway(CVA-41) during 1971 and 1972. It is nice to know the VA has been told that I was in Vietnam. Now I need to have someone tell the VA that there is no time limit on when MS will develope after my time in the service. At the moment the VA arbitrarily sets 7 years as the limit for developing MS after service. It's too bad the VA did not tell my disease that it could not occur after 7 years. I do hope that all the sailors and marines this decision affects are able to finally get their just rewards.

I agree with you 100%. Hopefully you will ignore the ignorant 7 year presumption and file anyway. When you are denied, please appeal and go before a BVA Veterans Law Judge in person, not video. A Travel Board Member of the BVA is as good as, if not better than going to Washington, D.C. Sooner or later MS and ALS are going to be linked with other neuromuscular diseases as AO related.
Please find a veterans organization service officer that is not blinded to working strictly by VA guidelines. Those guidelines are not favoring those actually affected, they are favoring the VA budget.

Dave- I emailed you the latest Statement from NVLSP- as probably everyone else did too---

I asked Richard Spataro, via email- to have NVLSP address the issue of widows of these AO vets.
Most of them- if the vet had any presumptive AO condition that caused or contributed to death-have been denied by the VA already and they too need this news and the what- next scenario-

The Thursday NVLSP statement spells it all out-claimswise-for advocates-and vet reps-
yet did not mention AO widows of Blue Water vets who died of presumptive disease.
I assume they too are in Nehmer Class Action.
BUT how do they get reached- TV only had 2 blips -on Navy vets and AO-

I sent Gold Star Wives (I am member) this NVLSP statement but do not know what outreach they perform and they are all DIC recepients already anyhow.
When NVLSP clarifies the AO Navy vet widow issue-I will let all know.

Berta Member-hadit.com,GSW,NVO,ALLVETS, ORS (AO vets),
VCV.ltd (Vietnam Combat vets limited) and
Marine Corps Assoc.

(I have let most of the above orgs know about the "LAW of the land" as NVLSP has deemed the Haas decision.
We must get those claims filed soon however.)

Berta:
Welcome aboard!
Dave

Intercepted Message: Seems like time is of the ESSENSE! Berta at hadit


Addtional Information Related to Blue Water Navy Presumption of AO Exposure

August 24 Statement by the National Veterans Legal Services Program
After analyzing the Court’s decision, we have prepared the memorandum below. The first part explains the background of the case and the Court decision. The second part contains our advice about what action veterans should take regarding their claims. I recommend seeking the assistance of a veterans service officer (VSO) to help veterans take the relevant action described below. You can contact a VSO by calling the VA’s general information number, 1-800-827-1000, which will put you in touch with the nearest VA Regional Office. Be sure to ask for a VSO (who is not affiliated with the VA) from an organization such as the American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, etc. We are posting this memorandum on our website as well. I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Richard V. Spataro
Staff Attorney
National Veterans Legal Services Program
1600 K Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006-2833
Tel: (202) 265-8305, ext. 149
Fax: (202) 328-0063
Email: rick_spataro@nvlsp.org
*Licensed in Virginia - representation in the District of Columbia limited to matters and proceedings before federal courts and agencies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NVLSP Attorneys Win Haas v. Nicholson –
“Blue Water” Navy Veterans Entitled to the Presumption of Exposure to Agent Orange

In an August 16, 2006 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) held that Vietnam veterans who served in the waters off Vietnam (these class of veterans are known as “Blue Water” Navy veterans) are entitled to disability benefits for diseases related to exposure to Agent Orange. Prior to this decision, the VA had taken the position that veterans had to step foot on Vietnamese soil in order to be entitled to the presumption of exposure to Agent Orange. The veteran in this case, Jonathan L. Haas, Commander, USNR (Retired), served in the waters offshore Vietnam and received the Vietnam Service Medal. The veteran claimed that his diabetes mellitus and complications were related to his exposure to Agent Orange that drifted from the shore. Attorneys Louis J. George and Barton F. Stichman of National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) represented Commander Haas.

Background: The Agent Orange Act of 1991 provides that veterans who served “in the Republic of Vietnam” from January 9, 1962, to May 7, 1975, are presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange, meaning that these veterans are entitled to disability benefits (medical benefits as well as service-connected disability compensation) for diseases related to Agent Orange (such as type II diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, and lung cancer, among other illnesses).

A long-standing provision of the VA Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1 (called the M21-1 manual), which is the “Bible” for those VA workers who adjudicate claims at the 57 VA Regional Offices, provided that “service in Vietnam” will be conceded, in the absence of contradictory evidence, if the veteran received Vietnam Service Medal, and as long as that service did not consist exclusively of “fly-over” duty. VA Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1, Part III, para. 4.24g. (Change 76, June 1, 1999). The M21-1 Manual went on to state that even if the veteran did not receive the Vietnam Service Medal, the VA Regional Office was required to research the ship’s activities to determine whether “the ship was in the waters offshore Vietnam” in order to apply the favorable presumption. Similar M2-1 manual provisions existed as early as November 1991.

The 2002 Revisions to the M21-1: Without public notice and comment, in February 2002 the VA withdrew the M21-1 Manual provision. The VA replaced it with a provision stating that service in Vietnam would not be conceded unless the evidence showed that the veteran actually stepped foot on land in Vietnam. Because veteran Haas filed his claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus in 2001, the favorable Manual M21-1 provision applied to his claim for service connection

Since the February 2002 revision (and in some cases even earlier) the VA has taken the position that in order for a Vietnam veteran to be presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange, the veteran must demonstrate that he or she actually set foot in Vietnam. This is often very difficult for Navy and Air Force veterans, as they may have actually had duty or visitation in Vietnam, but they cannot prove it. Records verifying their claims, such as in-country medical records, may have been destroyed. The VA, to adjudicate this type of claim, has been doing two things adverse to veterans. First, the VA regional offices have been denying service connection for initial claims. Second, the VA regional offices have been reviewing claims that were previously granted and, if the VA determined that the veteran did not step foot in the Republic of Vietnam, service connection for the disability based on exposure to Agent Orange would be severed (taken away).

The Haas Decision: The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) denied Mr. Haas’ claim for service-connected disability compensation based on exposure to Agent Orange. The Board held that although the veteran served in Vietnamese waters, since he did not step foot on shore in Vietnam, service connection for his diabetes and residuals was not warranted.

In 2003, NVLSP, in a case similar to that of Mr. Haas, represented a Navy widow before the CAVC and won her benefits when the VA settled her case. Commander Haas retained NVLSP in 2005 to represent him before the CAVC.

In its decision, the Court reversed the Board's determination that the veteran was not entitled to the presumption of exposure to Agent Orange and remanded the matter to the BVA for readjudication of the veteran’s claim. The Court held:

(1) 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f) is not clear on its face concerning the meaning of the phrase "service in the Republic of Vietnam." Accordingly, the statute is ambiguous, and the Secretary may promulgate regulations to resolve that ambiguity so long as the regulations reasonably interpret both the language of the statute and the intent of Congress in enacting the legislation.

(2) 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f) does not by its terms limit application of the presumption of service connection for Agent Orange exposure to those who set foot on the soil of the Republic of Vietnam.

(3) The Secretary's regulations, while a permissible exercise of his rulemaking authority, do not clearly preclude application of the presumption to a member of the Armed Forces who served aboard a ship in close proximity to the land mass of the Republic of Vietnam.

(4) The provisions of the VA Adjudication Procedure Manual in effect at the time the veteran filed his claim in 2001 entitled him to a presumption of service connection based upon his receipt of the Vietnam Service Medal.

(5) The VA’s attempt to rescind that version of the M21-1 provision more favorable to the veteran was ineffective because the VA did not comply with the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

(6) If service connection for diabetes mellitus is granted upon remand to the Board, secondary service connection must be considered for the veteran's claims of peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy.

Advocacy Advice: It is unclear whether the VA will appeal the Court’s decision in Haas, and the VA may amend their regulations in the future in a way that is adverse to veterans who otherwise would have benefited from the Court’s decision in Haas. It is clear that the negative change to the M21-1 has no force and effect because it was promulgated unlawfully. As of this writing, Haas is the “law of the land” and therefore it must be followed by the VA.

Quick action by advocates is essential. Because the VA may issue a negative regulation, claims based on presumptive exposure to Agent Orange need to be filed before the VA can finalize a negative regulation. Veterans and advocates seeking service connection for diseases as a result of Agent Orange exposure (as well as those seeking to have their benefits restored) are encouraged to take the following steps:

For new claims: If the veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal (or its predecessor award, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) (Vietnam)), for service offshore the Republic of Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, that was not just overflight duty, the advocate should argue that service connection should be granted under the M21-1 provision and Haas.

Even if the veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal for service in a location other than Vietnam (such as Thailand), those who represent veterans (and their survivors) should still apply for service connection, since the M21-1 provision does not outright prohibit application of the Agent Orange presumption in such cases. This type of claim may be difficult to win but should be filed.

Finally, even if the veteran did not receive the Vietnam Service Medal or the AFEM, advocates should submit applications for service connection if the veteran had offshore Naval service during the above period. This is because the M21-1 provision does not preclude service connection as long as it is verified that the veteran had service offshore Vietnam.

For denied claims still pending before the VA or before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: If the veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal (or the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Vietnam)), for service offshore the Republic of Vietnam (that was not just overflight duty), the advocate should appeal any denials of service connection and severances of service connection and argue before the VA or the Court that service connection should be granted under the M21-1 provision and Haas. Even if the veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal for service in a location other than Vietnam (such as Thailand), he or she should still appeal.

If the veteran did not receive the Vietnam Service Medal or predecessor award, the veteran should appeal the denial of service connection or severance action if he or she had offshore Naval service between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975.

For claims previously denied and that are now final: For claims that were previously denied and that are now final, the veteran should file a reopened claim in order to get benefits started (or restored) as soon as possible. The advocate should cite the M21-1 provision and Haas in the claim.

We suggest that the advocate not raise the issue of an earlier effective date, or claim clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the decision that denied or severed benefits, until benefits are actually granted or restored. Once benefits have been granted or restored, the advocate should consider challenging the effective date by filing a Notice of Disagreement with the effective date and/or a motion to revise the prior VA (or Board) decision that denied the claim, or that severed service connection, on the basis of CUE. Unrepresented veterans are urged to seek the assistance of an advocate prior to taking such action.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM A VFW SOURCE via Taura King - 8/22/06

"I know you have been involved with this issue for a long time and this is a really important Court case. Some more of our guidance is provided below. Note the reference to the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM (Vietnam). I've have also included our guidance on those who had offshore Naval service but did not receive the VSM or AFEM (Vietnam). "As I'm sure you know, VA has information from DoD verifying AO spraying in Thailand in 1964 & 65. Veterans who were in these areas at that time have been successful with claims.

However, as far as the Haas case is concerned, we are advising our representatives to file claims for those who served in Thailand and received the VSM. Not sure yet how it will play out but it can be reasonably argued that the ruling in Haas also applies to those veterans as well. Also, VA may end up appealing this decision to the Federal Circuit Court. There are still a lot of unknowns. I have included the guidance (below) we are providing to our representatives on veterans who served in Thailand.

Even if the veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal for service in a location other than Vietnam (such as Thailand), their representatives should still apply for service connection, since the M21-1 provision does not outright prohibit application of the Agent Orange presumption in such case. This type of claim may be difficult to win but should be filed.

For denied claims still pending before the VA or before the CAVC: If the veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal (or the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Vietnam)), for service offshore of the Republic of Vietnam (that was not just over flight duty), the advocate should appeal any denials of service connection (and severances of service connection) and argue before the VA (or the Court) that service connection should be granted under the M21-1 provision and Haas. Even if the veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal for service in a location other than Vietnam (such as Thailand), he/she should still appeal."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vietnam Veterans of America News Release

(Washington, D.C. ) – 18 August 2006 - “Some of the inequities of the application of presumptive coverage for exposure to Agent Orange have finally been set aside,” said John Rowan, national president of Vietnam Veterans of America. “We need to spread the word about this decision to all Navy veterans who served in the waters offshore of Vietnam and received the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). This Court decision will allow for an untold number of veterans and their families to receive the compensation and health care they are entitled to, as well as other VA programs,” Rowan said.

On August 16, 2006, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims rendered a decision in the appeal of Haas v. Nicholson. In their 31-page decision, the Court determined the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been unlawfully denying presumptive disability compensation for exposure to Agent Orange (AO) for service members who served in the waters offshore of Vietnam and earned the VSM.

Numerous veterans who served in Vietnam have been able to qualify for presumptive disability compensation for exposure to AO. Unfortunately the application of presumptive coverage has resulted in many inequities for veterans and their families. An example of this can be seen in the VA’s denials of presumptive service connection to service members who served on boats and ships off the coast of Vietnam. Although these veterans earned and received the VSM, many have had their claims denied by VA for presumptive disability due to AO exposure because they did not step foot on the ground in Vietnam.

“All veterans who served in the waters offshore need to speak with a service representative or service officer as soon as possible to see if they have a viable claim for compensation,” Rowan said. These veterans should also participate in the Agent Orange registry exam. I fully expect the VA will attempt to rescind and revise their interpretation of the law. If you have had a claim denied or have never filed, you must do so before the regulations change again in favor of the VA.”

Here is the text I am using for all of my Blue Water Navy Agent Orange claims, on VAF 21-4138:

*************IN SUPPORT OF BLUE WATER NAVY CLAIM************

I am requesting service connected disability compensation for diabetes type 2 (or whatever condition) due to my exposure to Agent Orange type herbicides in Vietnam. Service connection should be granted as I am diagnosed and treated for the condition; my service in Vietnam qualifies me for the service connection according to M21-1 provision and the Haas decision. 38 USC § 1116(f) does not by its terms limit presumption of service connection for herbicide exposure to those who set foot on the ground of South Vietnam.
(iii) A veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. The last date on which such a veteran shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent shall be the last date on which he or she served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975. ``Service in the Republic of Vietnam'' includes service in the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam.”
When a person is within the geographical or territorial limits of the land mass, that person is considered by international law within the nation. There are recorded incidents of U.S. warships being seized (USS Pueblo 1968) and U.S. fishing vessels (Peru 1964), as well as the US Navy boarding Russian vessels (Cuba 1962). Thus my position has been accepted as law, by the Executive Branch of the United States of America. There are no provisions in Title 38 of the United States Code, for any department, agency or division to deny due process under accepted treaty, law or regulations of the United States of America.

Thank you for your consideration.

Signed and dated

quote:

Originally posted by DaveBarker:
The appeals court threw out the VA "in-country" position last week. Time to reopen the AO Blue Water claims. See your veterans organization service officer.
I submitted the following statement with every Blue water Navy claim I filed since the VA sudden change in policy upon the regulation of “in-country status” by VA Counsel after diabetes type 2 was recognized in November 2000.
Here it is:
Probably the most divided group of veterans in the history of America is the beleaguered Vietnam veteran. This group of veterans were generally rejected by the American people early in the war that none of them started. Most of those serving in Vietnam from 1959 through the literal end of the war were patriotic young people who desired to defend the United States from her enemies. Sometimes the young veteran would have a problem of sorting out just who was the enemy. In Vietnam, the natives who worked during the day turned into the guerilla at night.
We also had the enemy at home. Those who protested the war for one reason or another.
Many of those were prominent politicians, actors and education leaders. There positions were well choreographed to make those serving look as they were interfering with the chosen lifestyle of the Vietnamese people. When in reality the Vietnamese people were being terrorized by their Communist brethren.
We also have the problem of those veterans who separate themselves as ‘in-country’ and those called ‘Era vets’ a situation not seen during WWII or the Korean war. In the years I have worked with veterans this one issue of were you ‘in-country’ has caused a great schism in the ranks of those who served from 1959 to 1975.
When the Vietnam veteran returned home they discovered many health problems those who did not go to Vietnam did not suffer. These veterans went to the Veterans Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs) and made attempts to discover the common link to those problems. It was not long before herbicide exposure was the culprit. For reasons never fully explained the VA rejected nearly every idea put forth from this group of veterans. Even their fellow veterans from other conflicts rejected their quest for answers.
Over two decades we sought information to link herbicide exposure and the health problems which were taking lives at early ages in this select group. It appeared the more research by the supporters of the Vietnam veterans, the more resistance by the government and some of the veterans of prior conflicts. It was not until the San Francisco District Court Of Appeals ruling in which Agent Orange went to trial in San Francisco and was found guilty. On May 3, 1989 in the U.S. District Court, the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson held that former Veterans Administration head, Thomas K. Turnage had imposed "an impermissibly demanding test" for determining whether an ailment could be linked to dioxin. A position many of us had stated for over a decade.
The ruling was not appealed by the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This has opened the doors for new opportunities for those who have been maimed by this, the deadliest of man made synthetic chemical compounds, TCDD or as we know it Agent Orange. Multiple Thousands of claims nearly 34,000, at that time had been denied over the years. So in the next decade the VA established regulations concerning diseases and exposure. The regulations have been changed as new diseases were recognized. In the early 1990’s those who were in the adjacent waters to Vietnam were presumed exposed. When diabetes type 2 was recognized in November of 2000, the regulations were revisited by those in the legal departments of the VA. The presumption of exposure to herbicides was changed by the VA..
The VA has denied many claims since mid 2001, stating the veteran was not exposed due to the fact he did not go ashore. This is an incorrect assumption based on economics and not fact. The current Agent Orange exposure in-country regulation:
“(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1112)
(6) Diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents. (i) For the purposes of this section, the term ``herbicide agent'' means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the period
beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, specifically: 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD; cacodylic acid; and picloram.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1116(a)(4))
(ii) The diseases listed at Sec. 3.309(e) shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, except that chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy shall have
become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service.
(iii) A veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. The last date on which such a veteran shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent shall be the last date on which he or she served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975. ‘Service in the Republic of Vietnam’ includes service in the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam.”
When a person is within the geographical or territorial limits of the land mass, that person is considered by international law within the nation. There are recorded incidents of U.S. warships being seized (USS Pueblo 1968) and U.S. fishing vessels (Peru 1964), as well as the US Navy boarding Russian vessels (Cuba 1962). Thus my position has been accepted as law, by the Executive Branch of the United States of America. There are no provisions in Title 38 of the United States Code, for any department, agency or division to deny due process under accepted treaty, law or regulations of the United States of America.

I believe the Blue water sailors deserve this - what about the Korean Vets? Agent Orange was used in and around the DMZ in 1968 and 1969. I know they get limited benefits. Was the agent orange in Korea(sprayed by the ROK Army) different than the type used in Nam? Does anyone have any more information on this?