Evidence of Service
in Vietnam

    For those that there official personnel file records do not indicate a tour of duty, ie, PCS (permanent change of station) to Vietnam/RVN, you may receive a (consistently) form letter from the VA processing your claim.     It is important, no matter what, that you thoroughly review the notice for your response and understand the sectional format of the notice, eg, intro, purpose, action and other contact information; generally speaking.

    Know & Understand 38 U.S.C. § 5103A & § 5103 .     Legal Precedence based upon Pay Stub 7/20/07.

    The Air Force operated C-130 aircraft as the workhorse during the Vietnam War shuttling supplies all over S.E.A.     The three (or four) key points on the S.E.A. circuit were Clark AFB in the Phillipines, Tan Son Nhut in Saigon, and in Thailand, both Don Muang in Bangkok and U-Tapao in Satahip.     The following official document may help veterans refer to such inter-country operations that included supplying Vietnam.     C-130 Tactical Aircraft     MAC Flight Data - More Data Wanted!     Flight Crews;     S.E.A. Map

"Common Practice"     Routes & Affidavits     Statement   re: email

Bangkok Shuttle

    Undoubtedly the most popular of the PACAF C-130 missions was the "Bangkok Shuttle," the 315th Air Division C-130 logistical mission in Thailand. Even though the ground portion of the Vietnam War was fought exclusively in South Vietnam, nearby Thailand was home for thousands of American servicemen, mostly airmen of the United States Air Force whose mission was to support the air war against North Vietnam.

    In-country (Thailand) shuttle service ran from Don Muang to Ubon to NKP to Udorn, etc. every day.

    The MAC role in Vietnam was essentially the same as had been that of its predecessors in World War II and Korea - providing long-range airlift from the United States to overseas basis. Unlike Korea, when MATS transports normally operated only into Japan, MAC airplane flew into the major bases in South Vietnam and Thailand, though they played no combat role in the conduct of the war during the period of heavy US involvement. Primarily, MAC transports carried high value cargo such as aircraft and equipment parts, while MAC civilian contract flights transported passengers to and from the combat zone. In the winter of 1965-66 MAC conducted Operation "Blue Light," the deployment of elements of the 25th Infantry Division from Hawaii to Plieku, RVN. During the 1968 Communist Tet Offensive MAC transports airlifted additional troops from the 101st Airborne Division to Southeast Asia, while at the same time supporting a buildup of forces in Korea in response to the capture of the US Navy intelligence-gathering ship "Pueblo." Undoubtedly the most important development in MAC in the Vietnam Era was the use of the C-141 as an airborne ambulance evacuating casualties out of Vietnam to hospitals in Japan, the Philippines and the United States.

- Source:   MAC Airlift Capability during Vietnam War

Medevac Flights via Ton Son Nhut (TSN/Vietnam)

    Some of you may have had an early departure from your tour in Thailand, courtesy of the U.S. Air Force and a special "Red Cross" bird (not to be confused with the Red Cross civilian organization.)



C-9A Nightingale Aeromedical Evacuation aircraft on the flight line at Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Vietnam, 1 February 1973. The aircraft were used to fly the American prisoners of war released by the Viet Cong at Loc Ninh, South Vitenam to Clark Air Base in the Philippines. Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) in the Korean War, as in World War II, demonstrated the value of AE in saved lives and improved casualty outcomes. The tensions of the Cold War in the 1950s and the escalation of the Vietnam War provided the motivation for continued investment in AE by the U.S. military services.

The next major AE development after Korea was the introduction of the Convair C-131A Samaritan, the first airplane ever especially designed, built and procured by the armed forces exclusively for the transportation of patients. This pressurized aircraft, with a specialized interior for AE, offered fast service for the short air routes of Europe and North Africa. The C-131A, which made its debut on 26 March 1954, had a cruising speed of 235 knots, had room for 37 ambulatory patients or 27 litter patients plus four ambulatory patients, as well as a medical crew of three. The aircraft configuration accommodated specialized medical equipment such as an iron lung, orthopedic bed, artificial kidney machine, or infant incubator. All Samaritans were distinctly marked with a red cross on the tail.

In June 1966, Headquarters USAF directed Air Force Systems Command to submit a proposed source selection and procurement plan for a new AE aircraft. In July 1966, the Department of Defense agreed to initiate a modernization program, and in January 1967 it approved the purchase of eight aircraft plus spares. Three contractors responded with proposals: McDonnell-Douglas (DC-9A), British Aircraft Corporation (BAC-111), and Boeing (B-737). On 31 August 1967, McDonnell-Douglas received the contract, and the first aircraft was delivered to Scott AFB, IL, on 10 August 1968. Eventually, 21 C-9As were purchased through 1971.

Aeromedical Evacuation in Vietnam

The Republic of Vietnam presented extraordinary logistical challenges for Aeromedical Evacuation. Saigon was positioned in the tropics of Sourtheast Asia, halfway around the world from Washington, DC, with a 12-hour time difference between the cities. The nearest off-shore U.S. hospital was almost 1,000 miles away at Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines. The nearest logistical support base was about 1,800 miles away in Okinawa. The nearest complete hospital center was in Japan, some 2,700 miles distant. Patients being evacuated to the United States had to travel some 7,800 miles to reach Travis Air Force Base in California, or almost 9,000 miles to reach Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington, DC.

Because of these extended distances, even with modern air transport, the need for self-sufficiency in the combat operations zone was greater than what had been required in other wars. To compensate, the U.S. military deployed a higher ratio of service support troops (including medical) to combat troops than would be provided in more conventional situations.

Advances in AE improved medical care during the Vietnam War. Rapid evacuation of the wounded from Vietnam’s battlefields by helicopters, followed by jet transports to advanced treaatment facilities, saved many lives. Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) operated in-country aeromedical service and transoceanic jet service to hospitals at Clark Air Base, Philippines, as well as Yokota AB and Tachikawa AB, Japan. Military Airlift Command (the successor to MATS) helped evacuate many casualties from Vietnam, handling all patient movement to the United States. PACAF’s 903d Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron provided the first mobile casualty-staging facility during this war.

Aircraft used for Aeromedical Evacuation during the Vietnam War

The aircraft used for AE during Vietnam included:

C-7 Caribou

C-9A Nightingale

    In the mid-1960s, Air Force flight surgeons and other physicians, dentists, nurses, and medical technicians established a presence in Vietnam and Thailand. At first, the Vietnamese and Thai hosts were unable to supply suitable medical buildings, and the Air Force itself had none to deploy. By mid-1966, however, the AFMS purchased modular steel boxes, 10 by 40 feet, and shipped them over water to Southeast Asia, where they were connected and equipped as medical units. By 1968, the 12th USAF Hospital at Cam Ranh Bay Air Base was the largest in-country Air Force facility, and the second largest hospital in the Air Force, with 475 operating beds and a 100-bed casualty staging facility. The Cam Ranh Bay airfield was also the main aeromedical evacuation hub for Southeast Asia. In the summer of 1968, at the peak of the Vietnam War, about 1,900 Air Force medics were deployed to Southeast Asia.

Details

U-Tapao Airman's email notes -

    This wasn't a shuttle junket. I was stationed at U-tapoa so I would have possibly been at the end of the curcuit. We had a good facility there but not for orthopedics. I only remember that the plane was White with a big red cross on the tail section. The Air Force says it was a charter, possibly Army that picked up Airmen. We took off from U-Tapoa and landed at Tan Son Nhut for about an hour. Then on to the Phillipines where I stayed over night and then transported out on a C 141 to Hawaii for an hour and to David Grant Medical Center. It sounds like I was picked up at the end of its curcuit. I would think there are pilots or other crew members who could verify that info. But where are they? Were they Army, Air Force or Red Cross? All that I remember about Tan Son Nhut was the C 123's (I think, well they were the two engine older version of the C130) that were next to us, and lines of Vietnamese carrying all their belonging on their backs waiting to get on them. Not sure where they were going. I can't even remember that many others being on the plane with me. I know it wasn't full. Don't even remember if they were Army or Air Force.
Colin

History of USAF Medical Service     Pilot out of Tahkli Story     Lackland Talespinner Dedication Story

C--130 Hercules
C--131A Samaritan
C-141 Starlifter

Ordinary transport planes equipped with litters flew most of the Vietnam War’s aeromedical missions. Although the Air Force acquired its first C-9A in August 1968, C-9As did not begin flying missions in Southeast Asia until March 1972.

Find More Information on the Web
There are many fine websites that have additional information on this topic, too many to list here and too many to keep up with as they come and go. Use this Google web search form to get an up to date report of what's out there.

For good results, try entering this:

aeromedical evacuation vietnam. Then click the Search button

    Recently, John Foster provided me with a copy of his PCS orders, returning to CONUS for assignment.

    To the untrained eye, several key bits of information may be overlooked such as the DISTRIBUTION outlined to the left here:   Oakland gets a copy, as does Bangkok and major commands of the Pacific such as USARPAC and Japan.     The other units are "gaining units" for their morning report entries.     USA Engr School (Ft Belvoir) is where all these soldiers are heading after a 30-day leave on TDY, see Page One.     Point being, morning report entries will take the gaining headcount, soldier identification, and make an entry based upon the 809th PCS Orders, see Unit Movement for further illustrations.

    This whole scenerio brought back memories of a young soldier that was in my company where I was the company clerk.     He demanded to be transferred to Vietnam, and 3 months later, he got his wish.     The PCS orders were "cut," and we sent him on his way to the Bangkok debarkation station for onward travel to Vietnam.     Point being, it was a regular travel route, both directions, for necessity of manpower movements.     Oh, the young soldier, went AWOL between Korat and Bangkok and the last record I have of him was a phone call from the MPs in Bangkok asking me his status.     Gladly, I told them that he was no longer "our property," off our morning report and "all theirs."

    As an example, I will use the content of my "verification of military service in RVN" and quote the parts important to understand and to follow up on:

Intro - "Below we have listed what evidence is still outstanding and the actions we have taken to obtain this information."

Now, that statement says several things and one of the most important is that there is only one area of evidence still remaining on the claim to verify or determine, ie, "still outstanding."     And, an indication of their actions taken to get that information.
 
The following is a complete excerpt of the key notice of the communication:

Evidence From Non-Federal Sources

* Verfication of Vietnam Service.   On [date] we requested verification of your Vietnam service from the National Personnel Records Center.     We received a reply on [date] that there was no evidence in your military personnel file to verify service in the Republic of Vietnam.     You need to send us any document(s) that you have in your possession that would substantiate any service on the ground in the country of Vietnam.     16 Aug 06 - Landmark ruling for VSM recipients details;   re:   Haas v. Nicholson
    See 38 U.S.C. § 5107, CZ pay stub, driver's license, somethin stamped RVN -- photo!

---

    That was paragraph #1 of 2 and we will discuss the content of same first.

(1)   Understanding the law (requirement):   that you have "set foot" in Vietnam.     Not off shore, eg, Navy personnel, not flying high above Vietnam, or adjacent theater operation countries, eg, Thailand or Phillipines.

(2)   Because your 201 File does not contain an entry, ie, check off for service in Vietnam that could mean many things.     First and foremost for those that were not PCS to RVN and stationed in another country.     I remember when I reenlisted in Honolulu, Hawaii after my initial enlistment (and separation from the service) that there were two check boxes related to RVN:   IndoChina and RVN not checked off.     Of course not, because I was stationed in CONUS, eg, Ft Lewis, Washington and Ft Shafter, Honolulu, Hawaii (technically an overseas area.)     In my first enlistment, covered by a different DD214, it indicated my RVN service medals and no such reference check boxes, but Thailand is a part of IndoChina, N/A.

Key (Legal) Issue

There was no evidence.     Fine.     Generally speaking when your DD214 reflects award of the RVN service medals, that would suffice, but the VA and the U.S. government has been able to work around that.     In those cases, the DD214 only reflects that you have military service and you are on the right road of claiming a service-connected disability.

Addressing the Legal Issue

You will need to provide something, a document that indicates that you have set foot in Vietnam in order to qualify for related legal statues, ie, exposure to AO.     It may be something as simple as a shot record, immunization form.     That's right.     Talking with a VSO that was in the Navy, off shore; he went to Saigon to have a flu vaccination administered.     So stamped, so indicated; personal (individual) document (within the period of time applicable) and that little form became more important than his DD214 to receive monetary compensation.

In my case, I have submitted an army pay voucher.     Again, individual and applicable to only me.     Why?     Tax exemption, CZ, for combat zone and there was only one of them in that (applicable) period and grounds for the "set foot" provision of the law.

Keep in mind, since VCAA of 2000 (and President Bill Clinton,) well-grounded, significant burden of proof is on the V.A. to dispel competent evidence of such documents.     In other words, if they have proof otherwise, present it.     You present what you have and with due process, have your claim granted.

Set Foot Provision of the Law

There is no minimum amount of time, eg, one day or one hour.     Setting foot in RVN, ironically, is one method that the government has been able to circumvent other legitimate claims by service personnel stationed either at sea or other neighboring countries as mentioned before.     You could be intransit, and simply landed in Vietnam at any of the many ports of entry, the doors opened on the plane, the wheels on the ground, and you waited for other passengers for onward movement to your destination.





Casual Pay in transit

Did you receive casual pay while in transit, in Vietnam?     Good as gold .. better than gold !     Better than DD214 !     What ?!     That's right.     Irregardless of annotation of RVN medals.     Ask a VA lawyer to explain that one.     (Protest by throwing away your medals .. who cares anyways?)

Summary     See VSM Update (15 Sep 06)
      and Haas v. Nicholson (16 Aug 06)

You have been officially informed by the VA that there is no evidence of your "service" in RVN to substantiate that portion of the law and your claim.     It is up to you to provide something, a document(s), eg, immunization record form, pay voucher and things that will not work or in most incidences:     photos (they can be manipulated in today computer softwar technology and possibly even military orders that may be fraudulently printed and also legitimately canceled.     201 files are great, but I know from working in or with personnel staffers that occassionally, such items will be removed from records, eg, TDY orders as an example.     The good news is that even without PCS orders, that some summary personnel document will have the dates of service indicated and you should be alright and never receive a notice of this nature.     If you do, all is not lost .. yet.

See also Claim Supporting Documents.     See Flight Data for more info.     See Filing Your Claim.

2nd Paragraph of Notice

* Please be advised, we are unable to take any further action to obtain Federal evidence from the service department or any other sources once we have received a definitive negative reply.     Any future attempts to obtain this information would be futile since it appears records are currently not available.

That's as good as gold too.     Why?     The V.A. has stated, legally and otherwise, that they have exhausted all (federal) sources and if you have something, it must be accepted, per the law; not the regs; they have indicated they have no grounds to remand your claim and delay your due process, another (cute) legal term they are bound to.     See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A .

Definitive negative reply; futile (attempt); not available .. perfect !     Watch the V.A. lawyers get on changing that wording .. but, they really can't, anymore.     Bill straighten them out and have to act in good faith, reasonable doubt (benefit of the doubt, ie, 5107.)     Later, I will be producing a page just full of all kinds of goodies to use as precedence in defense of your quasi, well-grounded claim.

(Just think how dangerous I will be once I have been properly trained...)
 

From: Jimmie Rogers [mailto:jrogers27@cfl.rr.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 1:31 PM
To: Boyd, Wayne Mr USAG/DPW; momessence_628@yahoo.com; wardsrei@juno.com; 
                             frickandfrack@cccusa.net; Thomas_Sm67@hotmail.com; 
                             JRTTLC@aol.com; mikevzey@aol.com; dale655@loxinfo.co.th; 
                             BobWertzCM@aol.com; willi934@westelcom.com; swomack@ipro.net; 
                             r2621TSC@aol.com
Subject: Re: Please Help Me!!

Wayne
 
Send a copy of your leave and earning statements to the following:  They had a specialist 
look at my records and sent me a certification of Vietnam service.  I got It back quick 
and was awarded 100%.
 
Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
DFAS-DE/ PMJOA 
6760 E Irvington PL. 
Denver CO 80279-3000 

I asked if anyone could check my pay records and see if I was in Vietnam. A copy of my 
letter was as follows: 


Subject: Pay records for 1968 - 1969 

Several years ago you provided me with copies of my pay records. I have the copies but 
I'm not sure exactly what they mean. 

In October 1968 until October 1969 I was stationed at Udorn Royal Thai Air Base. On about 
6 October 1968 I landed on a contracted flight from Travis AFB California, at Danang Air 
Base Vietnam. Most of the flights to Thailand landed in Vietnam for a couple of hours layover. 

On March 27 1969 I flew on travel order # T 19925 (4/69) from Udorn to Danang Vietnam and 
back to Udorn the same day. This was an incentive for reenlisting in the Air Force. They 
had a program that would allow you to fly from Thailand to Vietnam and back so your enlistment 
bonus would be tax exempt. Additionally, you would receive combat pay for that month. My pay 
records are stamped combat zone for those months and actually show the one-day TDY on the 
27th of March 1969 however, the destination is not shown. 

Also my October 1969 records show combat zone because I landed in Vietnam on my way back to 
the states. Most of the flights from Thailand back to the states landed in Vietnam for a 
couple of hours layover. 

Can you verify that I received combat pay, hostile fire pay and tax exempt by looking at 
the records? Also can you verify the only way I could receive these pays and exemptions is 
being in a combat zone. (Vietnam). 

This is for a claim for the Veterans Administration. I have Leukemia and it has been 
linked to being in Vietnam. 

Thank you for any help you can provide. 

Jimmy Rogers

DFAS Info       See Pay Stub Debacle, Pay Stub Citings, Claim Supporting Documents;   DA 1239   (Army)     "The veteran stated that on that trip in March 1966, his plane landed in Vietnam prior to arriving in Thailand.     He said that when he filed his travel voucher for that trip, he was told not to indicate that he landed in Vietnam.     He believed because of problems regarding combat pay."     re:   Citation Nr: 0432164 Another Veteran       (Note that Franco was an E-6 Finance Clerk w/Hawaii Army Natl Guard)     I will leave the vet's name annonymous because his pay records had an error.     The veteran stated that his plane landed in Vietnam, received "CZ" for tax exemption that pay period, but the finance clerk that prepared his pay voucher statement made a simple error stating, to the affect, that he "flew over" Vietnam versus landed there.     This is a simple discrepancy that you should dispute because you and you alone know what happened to you on your transient trip. FAX DFAS for your LES/army pay vouchers with "CZ" ...     The DFAS will do a search to find your pay vouchers that is a form of evidence, actually "well-grounded" basis versus "benefit of the doubt" doctrine, and you should submit any such pay voucher along with your claim in support of and to substantiate a basis of "set foot in Vietnam" provision (which at the publishing is obsolete by the landmark ruling on 16 Aug 06, Haas v. Nicholson.)     INCLUDE IN YOUR FAX 1.     Supply your NAME, SSAN and the period of time that you are looking for. 2.     Mailing address     (any c/o name, etc.) 3.     Telephone number(s)     (Day, work, residence, best time to call) DFAS FAX PHONE NO. is   (317)   510 - 1120/2128     VOICE: 510 - 5352/5349     Form   Word Doc (< 50K)     Email:   Irene Lewis DFAS-INDIANAPOLIS CENTER ATTN: DFAS-JBDM/ININ (COL 219R) 8899 East 56th Street Indianapolis, IN   46249-6540 Latest Phone Nos. & Address Credit:   Norma & Roy Capps (Tennessee)   John Muse, Thailand Veteran, 7th RRFS   His request for pay records got this notice: Some more contact names: Cliffor McMillian (317( 510-5352 James McGuire (317) 510=5349 Dale Wentling (317) 510-2102 And, no relation to the Denver address below: Defense Finance and Accounting Service DFAS-DE/ PMJOA 6760 E Irvington PL. Denver CO 80279-3000 Source Credit:   Wayne T. Boyd, US Army (Retired, 1SG)

    "Analysis -- A claimant for benefits under a law administered by the Secretary of the United States Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) shall have the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded. The Secretary has the duty to assist a claimant in developing facts pertinent to the claim if the claim is determined to be well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Thus, the threshold question to be answered is whether the veteran has presented a well grounded claim; that is, a claim which is plausible. If he has not presented a well grounded claim, his appeal must fail, and there is no duty to assist him further in the development of his claim as any such additional development would be futile. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). In this case, the veteran's claim for service connection for lung cancer due to exposure to Agent Orange is considered to be a plausible claim and is therefore well grounded. The Board also notes that that all necessary evidentiary development has been undertaken by VA and the duty to assist has been complied with."

    The "bad news" first is the majority of claims with a significant issue such as medical records missing will be remanded versus favorably acted on.     It is understandable because the majority of claims are looking for service connection and if there is no basis for relating your injury or disease to service whether presumptive or otherwise, the Board of Review can not possibly go forward.

    Again, let's look at the "good news" here or what was, as we say in legalese, an admission by the government/VA in support of their intentions to let your claim die:

"..it appears records are currently not available."

So?     That was my point before, about document(s) being pulled from your 201 file and leaving it up to you to support the evidence of your claim.     Got your vaccination record form?     Pay voucher for RVN?     BTW, I also provided excerpts of my official government passport that indicates travel during the period claimed and possibly something else the government may have other (transport) records for.     Right.

Consideratons for certain disadvantage classes, eg, homeless vets

You need to speak with a VSO representative versus taking on the VA by yourself.     There are fastrak processing available and other more lenient considerations when the other facts seem pertinent.     If all this sounds vague, it is because I am speaking in generalities and not a specific issue that may be waived by the VA in approving such claims.     For more on how one lawyer made a big difference, click here for an article found at Military dot-com.     For a reprint of the article preserved for posterity, click here.

Never ...

Never give up the original document you are submitting.     Have the document certified by your VSO and the copy only submitted.     By law, producing the actual document may apply in the appeal process and/or other legal lawsuit action in our courts you may take.     Keep your originals.

"..once we have received a definitive negative reply."

As we used to say, "the kiss of death" or the shaft.     Don't be alarmed.     It is standard, claim-killing jargon and in legal terms, it is up to you, ie, burden of proof, to provide the evidence by something personal to you; unique to you, eg, shot record or pay voucher CZ.

".. any future attempts would be futile.."     Right.     They, in affect, are leaving your disability claim in limbo.     Respond azap.     In fact, do like I did:     while your claim is being "processed" for 2-3 months, begin your document research and do not leave anything you may have kept from your military service unturned.     In my case, I had gone through several "turnovers" during my life since that period some 30 years ago to start with the day I got home from my first enlistment, I kept one set of jungle fatigues and took the rest of my belonging in tact, placed in my duffle bag and deposited in a Salvation Army donation container.

A few divorces and movement to several places meant not keeping things the way most people that go home and stay put would.     A VSO thought that I was a candidate for PTSD and should apply for further benefits.     It took all that I could do to keep from bursting out in laughter.     I inquired why and his response was because of "several" relationships, ie, being married several times and moving around.     If that's the case, any career soldier could use those grounds for an "uncomfortable" family home environment and I don't think the government wants to "face that music."     In fact, my personal feelings are that I wasn't going to let a bad marriage (or relation) destroy my future options in finding another women.     IOW, I wasn't going to become a hate'r of the opposite sex because of one (or two) bad marriages.     In my case, two .. no more !     Please !

Moving?     Shit -- moi complain?     7 years in Honolulu, 25 in Southern California and the past 3 years in Vegas .. right.

Whether you are a VSO or a claimant approved or turned down, please share your unique stories with me so that I can further publish them here for other veterans to review.     I hope to pursue VSO training in about a year with a good VSO I have yet to decide on and become an under-study for a seasoned VSO before my first case handling in order to better prepare for helping other vets.     It is my way of "paying back" for my own professional skills irregardless of what happened to me.

I feel well suited for the task having been a company clerk, worked in various military personnel functions and serving over 10 years of active duty plus some time with the Hawaii National Guard that will help me better understand the "beast" and help reservists returning from the Iraq War as well.

The VSO Training Program, I'm sure is adequate for "orientation," but not really suited for screwing up someone else's claim and there is a need for OJT as well as understanding legal issues .. I was a pro-bono paralegal for a few years in California for Family Court and my research, on my own case, saved me a lot of aggravation and legal expenses and I feel I won all my battles, including Federal Court, Chapter 13, to stop the auction of my house in 1998 and able to sell it at a terrific profit in 2002 .. should of waited til 2005, it appreciated another $250K.     Oh well.
 
The Pay Stub Debacle     .. also spelled "Green Light" / Approved.

The following case research centers around :   (1)   No other official documents for "visiting" Vietnam in one's personnel file at Records Centers and the only other official documents, ie, pay stubs reflecting CZ (combat zone) tax exempt entitlement afforded those that were in Vietnam and just as important -- during the period provided by the law.     I will center this group or class of cases based upon Thailand vets, a "most" discriminated class of veterans for exposure to agent orange.     And, rightfully so, because of the covert operations and manner of doing business of our government and Thai allies.     IOW, "screw the soldiers, at any cost."     It is a sad fact of life and one that many dead GI's, too late to benefit from compensation will ever learn.

And, one more final note, regarding combat zone tax exemption (versus "combat pay.")     You are not authorized combat pay unless you are on the ground for a minimum amount of time, eg, the entire pay period.     If some s.o.b. throws (up) that in your face,   throw it right back at him and tell him to "lighten up, bro."

re:   Citation Nr: 0434051   Decision Date: 12/28/04

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The veteran's conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

2. The veteran carries a current diagnosis of prostate cancer with residuals.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Prostate cancer and its residuals are presumed due to exposure to Agent Orange in the Republic of Vietnam, during the Vietnam war. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1116, 5107(b) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2003).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after discharge from service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

In this case, there is no evidence of direct service connection for prostate cancer. The veteran did not develop prostate cancer until many years after his separation from service, and there is no competent medical nexus of record establishing a connection between current prostate cancer disability and service.

However, the relevant question the Board must address is whether the veteran's service qualifies him for application of the presumptions available for "herbicide exposed" Vietnam veterans, under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116. Specifically, the issue at hand is whether the veteran had "in country" Republic of Vietnam service, so that these presumptions may be applied in the veteran's case. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307.

A veteran is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange if he served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (2004).

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 Vietnam era. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii).

The diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) applicable to the veteran's case include prostate cancer. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). It is required only that prostate cancer shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(ii). The medical evidence reveals that the veteran carries a current diagnosis of prostate cancer with residuals, as reflected on the October 2002 VA compensation and examination report. Thus, his disorder has clearly become manifest to a degree of at least 10 percent at some point after service. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b, Diagnostic Coe 7528

"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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) (2004). In this case, the veteran is in receipt of certain awards and decorations which show that his foreign or oversees service occurred during the timeframe necessary, and involved participation in battles or campaigns in support of the Vietnam war, including the Vietnam Service Medal with one Bronze Service Star, the Vietnam Campaign Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with device.

The veteran was an aerospace ground equipment mechanic in the U.S. Air Force, and was, at one time, officially stationed at Korat Airbase in Thailand. Although his master personnel record is on file, no TDY orders*, reflecting temporary duty in Vietnam, or anywhere else, are included. His personnel records do show that he was in Thailand between November 1967 and November 1968.

* Unnecessary orders, dated, are often pulled from 201 files to alleviate space.   Basis for this observation, 18 months of service at the Ft Lewis Overseas Replacement Center from 1970 to 1972; processing transients for duty in Vietnam, Korea, and other Pacific Commands; position, Assistant Shift/Team Leader, processed 300-500 soldiers per day, on average (for the lawyers.)

He avers that while he did, in fact, spend the majority of this time in Thailand, he also visited "in country" in Vietnam to repair aircraft, on least two occasions during the applicable time period. He has submitted copies of pay stubs, which he contends show that he received "combat pay" in August 1972, during his second period of service.     Remember what I said about combat pay vs. CZ/tax exemption.

He also testified that he was specifically told no additional government copies of records were available, as his records from that time frame were presumably destroyed by the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC).     Such references are "bull shit."     NPRC is about as competent as my grandma firing an M-60...

He has provided testimony, before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. His wife has provided her testimony as to her recollections of events, and a written lay statement. The veteran has also submitted a pay stub, which he testified establishes that he received combat pay for at least one pay period during his service during the Vietnam war, and that combat pay was not in order for Air Force service members who did not "visit" or set foot in Vietnam during the war. The veteran also testified that he did not serve in the demilitarized zone (DMZ), and his personnel records support his testimony.

When all the evidence is assembled, VA is then responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim, or is in relative equipoise, in which case the claim is granted, or whether instead a fair preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990).

The herbicide regulations provide that the factual basis for a grant of service connection, due to herbicide exposure, may be established by medical evidence, competent lay evidence, or both. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (b).

Under the facts and circumstances of the specific case, the preponderance of the evidence is not against the veteran's claim. The reasons for the Board's determination are multi- factorial. First, his June 2004 hearing testimony is considered credible and probative of the precise issue at hand. Additionally, the veteran's spouse's testimony is also considered credible.

Spouse's testimony!     Mark that!     Hearsay, at best.     Precedence for (incompetent) Board admission(s).

Next, the veteran's particular occupational specialty, aerospace ground equipment mechanic, at the time in question, is entirely consistent with the proposition that he visited Vietnam at least once during the applicable timeframe. Nothing in the record contradicts this conclusion.

MOS relevancy ...     Now, that's an interesting conclusion of fact, or otherwise.     Consider the (hearing) Board lenient, bending over backwards for this veteran in a bias way.     I hope their attorneys straighten out such "greenie" board members...

Finally, the veteran's receipt of the Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal and the Vietnam Gallantry Cross, while not dispositive that he served in Vietnam, do lend support to the contention that his duty resulted in the veteran visiting Vietnam. Moreover, although the SMRs do not show treatment during the time the veteran recalls being in Vietnam, they also do not show that he was treated elsewhere. Therefore, they do not sufficiently preponderate against the claim. The Board notes that the RO interpreted the statements on the VA examination as the veteran reporting that he served in Vietnam from 1962 to 1967; however, the Board finds the veteran's testimony under oath at his hearing, and his statements on his notice of disagreement and substantive appeal, sufficiently clarify that he was not claiming that he served in Vietnam during that entire timeframe, but rather, that he was there on TDY.

In cases such as these, if there is a doubt as to service incurrence, it is to be resolved in the veteran's favor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. There is no satisfactory evidence of record to disprove the claim. The evidence of record shows that the veteran's claim is within the range of probability, as distinguished from pure speculation or remote possibility. Mere suspicion or doubt as to the truth of any statements is not a justifiable basis for denying the application of the reasonable doubt doctrine, if the entire, complete record otherwise warrants invoking this doctrine. The reasonable doubt doctrine is also applicable even in the absence of official documents. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.       Know & Understand 38 U.S.C. § 5103A & § 5103

In this case, the credible testimonial evidence described above and the pay stub, when considered with his military occupational specialty, and his receipt of the Vietnam Service Medal with three devices, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with device, place the evidence in relative equipoise.

Thus, the Board finds, after resolving all doubt in favor of the veteran, that the veteran's service did involve visitation or duty in Vietnam for VA's purposes under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 and 3.309. He was therefore "exposed" to an herbicide agent within the meaning of VA law. The evidence shows that he currently manifests prostate cancer with residuals. In conclusion, after consideration of the reasonable doubt doctrine, the claim for service connection for prostate cancer is granted.

ORDER

Service connection for prostate cancer is granted.


______________________________________________
KATHY A. BANFIELD
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Accordingly, the veteran's case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action:

1.   The RO should contact the NPRC and request any and all documentation which could serve to confirm the veteran's presence in the Republic of Vietnam from September 1971 to September 1972 , to include all available personnel records that might refer to temporary duty (TDY) assignment orders, pay stubs which reflect special pay status, travel vouchers, etc. The RO should also search for Morning Reports or regularly kept records for the veteran's unit that might reveal the veteran's whereabouts. The veteran should assist the RO by providing as much detail as possible about dates of service in Vietnam, units of assignment, etc. Any forthcoming evidence must be associated with the claims file.

re:   Citation Nr: 0501504   Decision Date: 01/19/05
 
EDITORIAL:

    In most future cases, the content of the decision will not be as complete as this one, above.     It hasn't been easy to find a case such as this one that falls into the category of "legal precedence" or something that one may want to reference in a dispute (hostile) situation themselves.     But, this one absolutely does.     Claims

    Understanding the term "legal precedence".
See Legal Terms - Evidence.

VSM Legal Precedence   (16 Aug 06)     Or the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) that preceded the VSM This landmark decision sets aside the definition of "service in 'Nam" Over-turns any attempt by the VA to limit benefits to Vietnam-era Veterans

The Doctrine of Precedence .. common law .. policy


Source:   WikiPedia.com

  Resolved Question - Part 1   Part 2   Continued   Conclusion
Source  

Equity -

A branch of English law which developed hundreds of years ago when litigants would go to the King and complain of harsh or inflexible rules of common law which prevented "justice" from prevailing.     For example, strict common law rules would not recognize unjust enrichment, which was a legal relief developed by the equity courts.     The typical Court of Equity decision would prevent a person from enforcing a common law court judgment.     The kings delegated this special judicial review power over common law court rulings to chancellors.     A new branch of law developed known as "equity", with their decisions eventually gaining precedence over those of the common law courts.     A whole set of equity law principles were developed based on the predominant "fairness" characteristic of equity such as "equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy" or "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands".

Common Law

Common law Judge-made law.   Law which exists and applies to a group on the basis of historical legal precedents developed over hundreds of years.     Because it is not written by elected politicians but, rather, by judges, it is also referred to as "unwritten" law.     Judges seek these principles out when trying a case and apply the precedents to the facts to come up with a judgement.     Common law is often contrasted with civil law systems which require all laws to be written in a code or written collection.     Common law has been referred to as the "common sense of the community, crystallized and formulated by our ancestors".     Equity law developed after the common law to offset the rigid interpretations medieval English judges were giving the common law.     For hundreds of years, there were separate courts in England and it's dependents:   one for common law and one for equity and the decisions of the latter, where they conflicted, prevailed.     It is a matter of legal debate whether or not common law and equity are now "fused."     It is certainly common to speak of the "common law" to refer to the entire body of English law, including common law and equity.

Precedence

A case which establishes legal principles to a certain set of facts, coming to a certain conclusion, and which is to be followed from that point on when similar or identical facts are before a court.     Precedent form the basis of the theory of stare decisis which prevent "reinventing the wheel" and allows citizens to have a reasonable expectation of the legal solutions which apply in a given situation.

Latin (for "big shot") - Stare decisis

A basic principle of the law whereby once a decision (a precedent) on a certain set of facts has been made, the courts will apply that decision in cases which subsequently come before it embodying the same set of facts.     A precedent which is binding; must be followed.

Source   Fifth Judicial Court District Legal Dictionary   (E @ Equity)

The doctrine of stare decisis, or legal precedence is easy to research these days with the nominations of two judges to the United States Supreme Court, see below.     There are wanna-be judges (hiding in Internet "blogs," a new editorial platform .. for those without a news media platform.)     Thankfully, though, I was able to find some great shit for your review.     Please continue.

And, for those that stop reading before they get to the "Vail Daily News" article, shame on you, because the writer not only explains case law, or common law, but provides a description of legislative law versus common (case) law.     That's enough, for now -- now, it's up to you to browse and read.

Judge Samuel Alito, Supreme Court Nominee response to "legal precedent"

"I think the doctrine of stare decisis is a very important doctrine.   It's a fundamental part of our legal system.

And, it's the principle that courts in general should follow their past precedents.   And, it's important for a variety of reasons.   It's important because it limits the power of the judiciary.   It's important because it protects reliance interests.   And, it's important because it reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions.

It's not an exorable command, but it is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents."

STARE DECISIS - Latin "to stand by that which is decided."   The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

To abide or adhere to decided cases.   It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from.  The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle.   Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.

An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).

Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices.   This policy . . . 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system;   i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'"   (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.)  Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task,   the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.

Source:   The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On

From the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Stare decisis (Latin:['stare? 'dekisis], Anglicisation:['sta??i d?'sa?s?s], "to stand by things decided") (more fully, "stare decisis et non quieta movere") is a Latin legal term, used in common law to express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents, according to case law.

This doctrine is not held within most civil law jurisdictions as it is argued that this principle interferes with the right of judges to interpret law and the right of the legislature to make law.   Most such systems, however, recognize the concept of jurisprudence constante,   which argues that even though judges are independent, they should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner.  Therefore, judges' right to interpret law does not preclude the adoption of a small number of selected binding case laws.

Principle

The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components: The first is the rule that a decision made by a higher court is binding precedent which a lower court cannot overturn. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and lower courts. The second principle is an advisory one which courts can and do occasionally ignore.

Vertical stare decisis

Generally, a common law court system has trial courts, intermediate appellate courts and a supreme court.   The lower courts administer most day-to-day justice.   The lower courts are bound to follow precedents established by the appellate court for their region and the supreme court.   Appellate courts are only bound to follow supreme court decisions. The application of the doctrine of stare decisis from a higher court to a lower court is sometimes called vertical stare decisis.

Horizontal stare decisis

In the United States federal court system, the intermediate appellate courts are divided into "circuits". Each panel of judges on the court of appeals for a circuit is bound to follow the prior appellate decisions of the same circuit. Precedents of a United States court of appeals may be overruled only by the court en banc, that is, a session of all the active appellate judges of the circuit, or by the United States Supreme Court.

When a court binds itself, this application of the doctrine of precedent is sometimes called horizontal stare decisis. The State of New York has a similar appellate structure as it is divided into four appellate departments supervised by the final New York State Court of Appeals. Decisions of one appellate department are not binding upon another, and in some cases the departments differ considerably on basic points of law.

Warning:   for those not familiar with this new (free) encyclopedia, Wikipedia, it provides a freelance source of input from anyone across the Internet and has been recently recognized in controversy over an incorrect entry related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Legal Citings of Stare Decisis

United States Ex. Rel. Shore v. O'Leary, 833 F.2d 663 (7th Cir. 1987):

"Lower court owes deference to higher court and ordinarily has no authority to reject doctrine developed by higher court.

"One foundation block of our judicial system is the principle of stare decisis which demands adherence to precedents. Decisions are made in accord with previous authoritative decisions in similar cases emanating from one's own circuit and from the Supreme Court. A lower court owes deference to those above it; ordinarily it has no authority to reject a doctrine developed by a higher court.  See, e.g., Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 535, 103 S.Ct. 1343, 1344, 75 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983) (per curiam); Perri v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill., 817 F.2d 448, 451 n.4 (7th Cir. 1987)." [United States Ex. Rel. Shore v. O'Leary, 833 F.2d 663 (7th Cir. 1987)]

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1406:

Stare decisis.   Latin   To abide by, or adhere to, decided cases.

Policy of courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point.  Neff v. George, 364 Ill. 306, 4 N.E.2d 388, 390, 391.   Doctrine that, when court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts,   it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, when facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same.  Horne v. Moody, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 505, 509, 510.   Under doctrine a deliberate or solemn decision of court made after argument on question of law fairly arising in the case, and necessary to the determination, is an authority, or binding precedent in the same court, or in other courts of equal or lower rank in subsequent cases where the very point is again in controversy.   State v. Mellenberger, 163 Or. 233, 95 P.2d 709, 719, 720.   Doctrine is one of policy, grounded on theory that security and certainty require that accepted and established legal principle, under which rights may accrue, be recognized and followed, through later found to be not legally sound, but whether previous holding of court shall be adhered to, modified or overruled is within court's discretion under circumstances of case before it.   Otter Tail Power Co. v. Von Bank, 72 N.D. 497, 8 N.W.2d 599, 607.   Under doctrine, when point of law has been settled by decision, it forms precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from, and, while it should ordinarily be strictly adhered to, there are occasions when departure is rendered necessary to vindicate plain, obvious principles of law and remedy continued injustice.   The doctrine is not ordinarily departed from where decision is of long-standing and rights have been acquired under it, unless consideration of public policy demand it.  Colonial Trust Co. v. Flanagan, 344 Pa. 556, 25 A.2d 728, 729.   The doctrine is limited to actual determination in respect to litigated and necessarily decided questions, and is not applicable to dicta or obiter dicta. See also Precedent; Res (Res judicata).

Stare Decisis and Techniques of Legal Reasoning and Legal Argument Paper

Indiana Courts Dissertation       Law School Discussion Forum for Grad Students

Free Dictionary w/precedence definition reference

stare decisis (stah-ray duh-see-sis) n. Latin for "to stand by a decision,"   the doctrine that a trial court is bound by appellate court decisions (precedents) on a legal question which is raised in the lower court.   Reliance on such precedents is required of trial courts until such time as an appellate court changes the rule, for the trial court cannot ignore the precedent   (even when the trial judge believes it is "bad law").

precedent   1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment.   Thus, "the rule in Fishbeck v. Gladfelter is precedent for the issue before the court in this case."   The doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis (star-ay dee-sigh-sis).     2) adj. before, as in the term "condition precedent," which is a situation which must exist before a party to a contract has to perform.

Source:   Definition of Precedent

"How stare decisis Subverts the Law",   an Opinion ...

Quote/

    "[Stare decisis] is a maxim among ... lawyers, that whatever has been done before may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind."

    — Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels.

Non-Publication Erodes Stare Decisis Paper

OVERVIEW

If justice is to be dispensed even-handedly,  similar cases must be decided similarly.

Ad hoc jury decisions that yield unexplained verdicts reflect the self-contained values our jury system embraces. But appellate adjudication performs a different function and creates different expectations. The core function of appellate courts is to assure that legal principles derived from the Constitution, statutes and, in the case of state courts, the common law are applied correctly and consistently.

Stare Decisis requires that a prior decision be followed in subsequent cases unless it is distinguished or overruled.  The application of the doctrine usually turns on a determination of the identity between two cases -- a determination that cannot be made unless the facts and reasoning of the prior case are known.

STARE DECISIS AS A QUALITY CONTROL MECHANISM

Stare Decisis, at its heart, is a quality control mechanism, raising all error for discussion and correction.

Stare Decisis guarantees a consistent level of quality, consistency or reasoning in the law and application of the law.

Stare Decisis guarantees that all judges will meet the standards of the most conscientious of their brethren. As such, it raises the quality of law and judicial functions.

Public awareness of Stare Decisis encourages the continual inspection of the law and participation in the legal process by the public.

Vail Daily News, Colorado   (Why would I quote a Colorado newspaper?   If the writer is good, damn right.)

Literally, "stare decisis" is Latin for "to abide by" or "adhere to" decided cases. It is the policy of the courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled points of law. In a sense, it is the ultimate conservatism of the courts, that is, to let what has been settled before lie. Of course, some would argue that the policy of stare decisis is the ultimate in compounding the courts' mistakes, that a wrong decision begets other wrong decisions based upon the first, and then the growing chain of wrong decisions. More on that in just a sec.

In order to understand the principle of stare decisis, it is first essential to understand, in broad terms, how the law works. In shorthand, there are two kinds of law: statutory law and case law or common law. Statutory law can be construed as laws enacted by the various legislatures: federal, state and local. It is written law, enacted by a legislative body which is encoded in rule books which we call statutes, ordinances or codes. Statutes set up from the outset what the rules are and, generally, what the penalties are for violating those rules.

Common law is a different bird. It is the law as it develops accretionally, over time, on a case-by-case basis. One case builds upon the last and when the principles in a case are similar to those in another heard before it, the courts will rely upon the prior ruling or rulings for guidance. This is what is known as precedent. "Precedent," of course, derives of the word "precede" which means to come before. Accordingly, decisions by the various courts on issues or principles which have been heard by other courts before (of, where applicable, by the same court before) guide the court in coming to its resolution, at least one goal of which is maintaining the consistency of verdicts. In other words, one case with facts identical, or substantially similar, to a prior case should not yield a different result. This lends certainty, evenness and fairness to the law.

Precedent means, simply, an adjudged case or decision of a court, considered as furnishing an example or authority for an identical or similar case arising afterwards upon a similar question of law. Whenever possible, courts attempt to decide cases on the basis of principles established in prior cases. Taken together as a collective, these prior decisions comprise the common law which is law created of the totality of the judgments, decrees and decisions of the courts over time. "Common," of course, means belonging or shared equally by more than one. Accordingly, common law, means "shared" law, the law shared between all of the courts. Common law belongs to the people as opposed to belonging to the legislature.

Since stare decisis means to "abide by," the logical question is to precisely what does the court abide? The answer is straightforward, the court abides by precedent. Expanding the concept, it means that the court will not disturb settled points of law. Stare decisis is the doctrine that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and property are the same. Sort of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander," of course in more highfalutin' terms.

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS: Judicial Review: Stare Decisis

    Example:     Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States made "legal precedence" in a "landmark case" where it over-turned the traditional meaning of "eminent domain" and I might add, in favor of the rich class of the United States.     Now, every brother and his uncle is trying to screw the little guy for their property, eg, Riviera Beach, Florida.     By telling the people that it is proper and right for private property to be taken from one and given to another (private party) and not (anymore) necessarily in the public interest.     They (the rich) can build their golf courses, country clubs, yacht harbors and condos and give you "fair market value" for your property.     Now, that value may not be so fair as usually these same (rich) folks have appraisers in their pocket too.     And, you thought there was no corruption in America...

    "For more than two decades the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit allowed governments in that state to take most any property they wanted to transfer to most anyone they wanted for most any reason they wanted. The U.S. Constitution's "public use" restriction was satisfied, the court ruled, even when Detroit seized an entire ethnic neighborhood to hand over to General Motors for a new factory."     Click here,   for the full story in "Legal Plunder."     No affiliation; no commissions here.

    This "Poletown vs. GM" case has been in the courts a long time .. until the Supreme Court found in favor of the rich, the controlling factor in society.     More .     Now, this issue is growing like "wild fire."     Just take a look at another reported case,   "Lawndale General Plan" (aka redevelopment plan) versus some 5,000 lots of land primarily individually owned by folks like you and me, the "little guy."     "Political Animal".

    Impeach those judges !!!     Oh, you can't.     By our (fine) Constitution, which they evidently over-looked, they are there for life.     Impeach those that allowed it, eg, your senators, representatives and foremost, president because they are the ones that not only allowed it, but approved of it.     Kinda like the vote to support the war in Iraq and place the burden of cost and life on the poor class .. I ignore the middle class because Congress and the President are still working on out-sourcing that to China, India and anywhere else the "controlling interest" can find cheap labor, benefit with tax exclusions equal to life earnings (of the poor class) and destroy the future of our young.

    Now, I hope you have a firm understanding of the power of "legal precedence" set by the Board in past (legal) decisions based upon the laws that govern V.A. regulations and a fair and equal balance of future rulings...

    In providing a critique, though, there are several points that seem to be a little sloppy, but with the new rules of law and such legal issues as "benefit of the doubt," for one, and "reasonable doubt," it fits the bill, for sure.     Now, my comments are meant to be "constructive" and not necessarily "negative."     God bless'em .. the guy was given his compensation.

    It seems the Judge in this decision was lenient on the issue of military decorations where the majority of the cases reviewed indicate the Vietnam service medals don't mean shit, ie, are awarded for support theatre(s) of operation.     The only exception, of course, is the Bronze Star and my understanding is that if it is awarded outside of actual combat in such MOSs as an infantryman, without the "V" device for valor, than it is a form of "commendation medal" for doing a good job.     My (to be) father-in-law was a veteran of World War II and he took a German machine gun nest, saving many more lives of his comrades in arms, in combat.     He was an infantryman, MOS, and in combat and rightfully deserving of wearing the Bronze Star.     This Judge may not have been aware of that and of course, reliance on the citation would also be informative.

    Then, we have testimony from the wife .. what's that all about?     Throw it out.     At best, in a court of law, it would be misleading as to "character" and prejudiced versus hearsay under law.

    The findings indicate that there were no other official records than a pay stub provided, and that of course, is more than adequate where other documents (and cases) reviewed find for a veteran with a stamped driver's license or a flu shot record.     Why?     .. with access to a (souvenir) stamper from the Vietnam Era, such things could be falsified,   on official documents (not stamped.)

    The decision rambles, at times, but does "go the extra mile" in explaining "reasonable doubt" (legal) issue where the Board can not rely upon suspicions or "negative vibes" to deny or find disfavorably for the veteran.     That is a good reason to have someone represent your interest in obtaining compensation,   and to refer to this claim decision as legal precedence;   irregardless of spouse's testimony (present or otherwise) and your MOS.     And, forget the medals -- I already tried to get a free cup of coffee at Starbucks and got only weird looks.

re:   Citation Nr: 9714672   Decision Date: 04/30/97,   "The Case of the W-2..."

A copy of a 1968 Form W-2 (Wage and Tax Statement) pertaining to the veteran has been received in support of reopening the claim. It shows that the issuer was the Department of the Army Finance Center and contains a typewritten notation that the form was being “reissued” by the employer in February 1969. Each “1968” on the form is stricken and replaced with “1966.” The form contains the notation “Combat Zone.”

The available service personnel records indicate service in USARPAC from June 3, 1966 to January 22, 1967. His assignment record shows that he was in casual status, en route to Thailand from Fort Ord, California, as of May 23, 1966. Beginning June 10, 1966, he is listed as assigned to duty as a light truck driver with Company A, 809th Engineer Battalion *, USARPAC. In January 1967 he was a patient at the U.S. Army Hospital, APO Camp Zama, Japan, after injuring his right lower extremity. He was then shipped back to the United States. There is no indication in the available service personnel records that the veteran was in Vietnam.

* USARPAC ???     I was with USARPAC, in Hawaii, and the period '66 - 67 (in Thailand, with the 809th would be the 44th Engineer Group, headquartered in Korat where I was the company clerk, in 1968.)     So, something "smells" with this story, but please .. don't let me stop you from reading on.

But, please -- don't choke on the next paragraph of the decision:

In a further statement, the veteran again asserts that he was mistakenly sent to Vietnam from Fort Ord, California. He states that he was listed as absent without leave (AWOL) and that Military Police (MP) were sent to his parents’ home to search for him. He asserts that his parents showed the MPs a copy of a letter he had written from Vietnam and that he was subsequently located and transferred. In his statement he denies being attached to any company in Vietnam, but asserts that he drove a bulldozer to make camps for incoming soldiers and was exposed to herbicide spraying.

Continue ..

In his journal the veteran indicated leaving Fort Ord, California, on May 25, 1966. In a June 2, 1966, entry he wrote that he left for Thailand and landed in Vietnam 30 hours later. In an added “footnote” he indicated that someone messed up. In a June 10, 1966, entry he then stated that he left Vietnam and arrived in Thailand. Based on the veteran’s assertions the RO requested verification of the veteran’s service. In June 1994, the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) informed the RO that there was no record of the veteran being in Vietnam at any time during service.

Subsequently, the veteran submitted additional statements and testified at a personal hearing in June 1994, reiterating that he was sent to Vietnam by error of the military and that he was exposed to herbicides during that time. Also received were lay statements from members of the veteran’s family, which support the veteran’s contention that he was in Vietnam prior to his service in Thailand. The lay statements indicate that the family received letters from Vietnam; however, those statements also state that no such letters are available.

Note:   the prior case where the spouse's testimony was "entered into the record" and allowed, and here, the (prejudiced) testimony of the claimant's veterans is basically not allowed in support of his claim.     Biased?

II. Analysis

The well-groundedness requirement shall not apply with regard to reopening disallowed claims and revising prior final determinations. Jones v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 134, 138 (1994).

Note:   note the date of the claim, ie, prior to VCAA/2000.     Sorry.

Synopsis:   the claim was initially denied, and then based on the rules of (material) evidence, new evidence, was presented and skipping ahead, this was the analysis, below.

The Board finds that the memorandum from the veteran’s CO, the service personnel records, copies of the 809th Engineer Battalion’s morning reports, and the copy of the reissued Form W-2, which are all clearly new, are also material to whether the veteran was in Vietnam. The Form W-2 is clearly material, inasmuch as it appears to indicate that the veteran was in a combat zone at some time during 1966. The remaining documents include reference to the veteran’s assignment dates and, although only containing positive proof of service in Thailand, when considered together and when viewed in the context of the evidence of record, those documents reveal date discrepancies and an unaccounted for period when the veteran was in “casual status.” The Board is of the opinion that such raise a question of whether the veteran was in Thailand or elsewhere during the asserted time period. Thus, the Board concludes that evidence new and material to whether the veteran had service in Vietnam has been presented and that the November 1984 RO decision is reopened. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following:

1. The RO should request from the NPRC the veteran’s complete service personnel records or legible copies thereof, to include any transportation vouchers, documents showing any leave approved or taken during 1966, particularly in May and June, and all military orders. In addition, NPRC should be asked to provide the veteran’s military pay records, including any documents relevant to combat zone pay/exemption status. If pay records are not maintained at NPRC, their location should be determined and they should be obtained. NPRC should be informed that the above are needed by the Board in order to arrive at a determination in the veteran’s claim. If NPRC will not provide the complete personnel file and/or relevant payroll documents, they are requested to provide an explanation as to any unavailability or reason such is barred from release.

3. The RO should contact the Department of the Army Finance Center regarding the re-issuance of the 1966 W-2 form, and to obtain the veteran’s pay records if they are located there. The Finance Center should be asked to provide an explanation as to the circumstances of its reissuance of the W-2 form and, if of record, the basis for combat zone pay exclusion, such as whether it was based on the veteran’s presence in Vietnam, his having flown over Vietnam, or service in direct support of military operations in a combat zone. The Finance Center also should be asked whether the veteran received any type of pay for any period of time during 1966 that would be payable only to service members located in Vietnam. Finally, the Finance Center should be asked to provide the RO with a copy of the reissued Form W-2 and of all official documents and any correspondence from the veteran requesting or otherwise concerning the reissuance.

4. After the above has been completed to the extent possible, the RO should again request NPRC to verify the veteran’s alleged presence in Vietnam. NPRC should specifically provide documentation as to the veteran’s duty status and whereabouts from May 23 to June 10, 1996 and, if possible based on positive documentation, verify that he was not in Vietnam at that or any other time during his service. If, based on available records, NPRC is unable to certify that the veteran was not in Vietnam, they should so state.

5. After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, the RO should again review the record. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The appellant need take no action unless otherwise notified.

This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals or by the United States Court of Veterans Appeals for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans’ Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1996) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA’s ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03.

EDITORIAL:

    You may be asking yourself, what in the hell is the significance of this particular case to material evidence substantiating a claim for service in Vietnam.     And, you would be right except for a few not-so-obvious facts:   (1)   The date of the claim (1997),   (2)   Remanded because the government had no case, no evidence against the appellant and (3)   the final summation (law) reference, an outdated, obsolete Act of Congress, the decrapit Act of 1994, to wit:   The Veterans’ Benefits Improvements Act of 1994

Do you see?     Now, you may understand what is meant by the expression "the deck is stacked against you."     The V.A. can use all the colorful language in the world, and because its actions were not like a normal court of law, just remand case after case; never to be heard or seen again because no action could be taken by an appellant, under the circumstances of "gathering information."     The pacification language of "no opinion" rendered (or prejudice) does not reveal the government position of prejudice.

It is the opposite of the law today, ie, "benefit of the doubt," "reasonable doubt," "rebuttle" notion(s).

And, if the appellant is sick, very sick -- they will go to their grave without being compensated.     If they are merely "sick," well, they may feel defeated and drop the matter completely.

"This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.".     Oh really .. I want to throw up.     Where is the resolve of the Board, the V.A. on "gathering information"?     The finance records to substantiate against the appellant or for the appellant?     That underscores the adversarial nature of filing a disability claim against the government, then.

Note:   Now, you (hopefully) see the tie-in with the explanation I had earlier provided you regarding "due process," "notification," "action(s) taken," "what is (still) needed," and not allowing your claim to be "side stepped" while the government "back paddles" with nothing but "hot air."     See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, again.

Today:

On November 9, 2000, the President signed into law the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000). The Act is applicable to all claims filed on or after the date of enactment, November 9, 2000, or filed before the date of enactment and not yet final as of that date. The new law eliminates the concept of a well-grounded claim, and redefines the obligations of the VA with respect to the duty to assist claimants in the development of their claims. First, the VA has a duty to notify the claimant and representative, if represented, of any information and evidence needed to substantiate and complete a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102 and 5103 (West 2002). Second, the VA has a duty to assist the claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2002).

In cases such as these, if there is a doubt as to service incurrence, it is to be resolved in the veteran's favor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. There is no satisfactory evidence of record to disprove the claim. The evidence of record shows that the veteran's claim is within the range of probability, as distinguished from pure speculation or remote possibility. Mere suspicion or doubt as to the truth of any statements is not a justifiable basis for denying the application of the reasonable doubt doctrine, if the entire, complete record otherwise warrants invoking this doctrine. The reasonable doubt doctrine is also applicable even in the absence of official documents. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. re:   Citation Nr: 9714672   Decision Date: 04/30/97 Legal Precedence:   cite this case as of 2000 and VCAA/2000 has changed the "well-grounded" doctrine in favor of the "reasonable doubt" doctrine.     The claim may not be remanded without substantial issues unresolved by the government, and that does not include incompetent search(s) on their part, ie, futile.     If you got a letter like I did regarding "service in Vietnam," and the government reports there is no records available .. tough.     And, please note that although this particular case, prior to 2000, was denied; it is a legal decision of the Board and the Board is subject to review of their own actions as they apply today. " When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. §5107(b) (as amended); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. "

Editorial Conclusion:     Yes, there were discrepancies in date(s), but the evidence favorable versus negative must be found in favor of the appellant, per law and regulation.     And, for the various comments I made regarding USARPAC versus the 44th Engineer Group .. wrong -- there were (substantial) action reports that were so written indicating the major headquarters versus the parent organization, in Thailand.

The appellant isn't required to be aware of such facts, nor be an informed administrator.     The V.A. action to remand this case was wrong, very wrong -- in my humble opinion.     The appellant gave a plausible explanation of events leading up to his PCS (permanent change of station) to Thailand and ultimately the 809th Engr Battalion.     Why would his commanding officer have information regarding this soldier's "casual status," intransit?     There is no reason for that?

We had a guy go AWOL on reassignment orders from Korat to Vietnam and months later the MPs in Bangkok called me and asked me of his status and I checked our reports to tell them that his status was "departure"/PCS.     Neither I, as company clerk, nor my C.O. would know what that idiot was up to.

A good case, and exposure of the intent of the Dept. of the V.A.

This is 2005; get a good VSO to represent your interest and plan a good offense with education of the adversarial system, as it remains today.     Advocates for veterans are rallying for true attorney representation, but this may still be years away.     Unfounded/undisputable documents of evidence is all that is required today because you now have "reasonable doubt" in your favor.

 

Recent research of claims of visitation in Vietnam, ie, enroute to Thailand, uncovered a good legal precedence case to reference, Citation Nr: 0515988   Decision Date: 06/14/05; the issue:   Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus.

Quote/The veteran's contention is that his diabetes is the result of being exposed to Agent Orange. In this regard, the veteran must have service in the Republic of Vietnam between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975 to be afforded the presumption of herbicide exposure. The veteran contends his exposure occurred while on route to Thailand in February 1967. The veteran stated that he changed planes in Vietnam and spent a period of several hours in Vietnam at that time. It should be pointed out that the veteran seems credible in his reported statements. The Board notes that there is no requirement as to how long the veteran was in Vietnam; even a few hours of service in country is sufficient to establish the presumption of exposure. See Veterans Benefits Administration Manual M21-1, Part III, Chapter 5, Par. 5.10(c) (July 1, 2004). In this regard the Board notes that it was common practice at the time the veteran was being transferred to Thailand to allow for stopovers in Vietnam so military personnel could avail themselves of facilities and supplies that were not available to them in more remote postings such as Thailand. In addition, the Board finds the veteran's statements with regard to his travel at that time credible, particularly when viewed in conjunction with the statement from the retired Air Force Colonel who noted that his route to Thailand, in January 1967, took him through Vietnam. Accordingly, the Board finds that there is a tenable basis to find that the veteran did have a brief period of service in Vietnam in February 1967. Therefore, resolving all doubt in favor of the veteran, service connection for diabetes mellitus is granted on a presumptive basis due to Agent Orange exposure.
 
re: Citation Nr: 0432676   Decision Date: 12/09/04,   Enroute to Phillipines via Vietnam ...

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the appeal has been obtained.

2. The veteran had "service in Vietnam", as his plane stopped in Vietnam while en route from California to the Philippine Islands in March 1966.

3. The veteran currently has Type II diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Type II diabetes mellitus was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1116 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.313 (2002).

See the below for a quote from the "Factual Background" for some of the weirdest bull shit I've heard in a long time, eg, "doors of the plane open", combat pay denial ..

Quote/In March 2001, the veteran submitted a Veteran's Application for Compensation and/or Pension. In this form, he stated that he did not serve in Vietnam.

In December 2001, the veteran submitted a claim for service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus. By a letter dated in March 2002, he asserted that he first had visual symptoms in 1968 or 1969. By a letter dated in September 2002, he stated that he did not go to Vietnam in service. He contended that he was exposed to Agent Orange during service when he worked on planes that returned from Vietnam. He reiterated his contention in a December 2002 statement.

In March 2003, the veteran submitted original travel documents and vouchers reflecting that he traveled from California to Thailand during service in early March 1966, via Clark Air Force Base (AFB), in the Philippine Islands. Such documents do not reflect that he was in Vietnam. The veteran stated that on that trip in March 1966, his plane landed in Vietnam prior to arriving in Thailand. He said that when he filed his travel voucher for that trip, he was told not to indicate that he landed in Vietnam. He believed because of problems regarding combat pay. He said that the doors of his plane were open while it was in Vietnam.

Conclusion:

Service in Vietnam includes service in the waters offshore, or service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in Vietnam. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii), 3.313(a) (2003). Service connection based on herbicide exposure may also be established with proof of actual direct causation, although such carries a very difficult burden of proof. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

re: Citation Nr: 0502446   Decision Date: 02/02/05,   "plane stopped in Saigon; doors were open"

Quote/The appellant maintained in a September 2001 statement that he serviced aircraft in Thailand that had flown close ground support missions in Vietnam. He also reported that the only time he was in the Republic of Vietnam was as a passenger on a aircraft. He reported he was transiting from his duty station in Thailand to the Continental United States, when his plane made a stop at Saigon and all doors were left open. He indicated service department records showed the aircraft he traveled on flew over Vietnam twice (once each way), though the copies of service department records he provided showed no more than that he traveled on emergency-leave orders from Korat Air Base, Thailand, to Travis Air Force Base, California, in February 1974, and presumably returned to Thailand sometime soon thereafter.

The principal question, given this change in the regulations, is whether the evidence shows he served or visited Vietnam in February 1974. If so, then the diagnosis of diabetes and a determination of the disease manifested at a 10 percent rate would entitle him to service connection for diabetes. However, the service department records show nothing more than that the appellant flew between Thailand and California in February 1974. They do not show any stop in Saigon as contended by the appellant. Though such a stop is possible, the record contains no evidence other than the appellant's own recollection on which to base such a conclusion. Instead, the service department records show his duty assignment in Thailand and place him on an aircraft flying between Thailand and California, without indication of a stop for any period in Saigon or other areas of Vietnam. Despite the change in regulation, and even if the claim were to be reopened based on this change in the regulation, there is no documentation attesting to the appellant's visitation to the Republic of Vietnam that would warrant application of the presumptions of section 3.309(e).

FAQ:   Service Medals not credibable facts as to Service in Vietnam

    re:   Citation Nr: 0500862   Decision Date: 01/12/05

Quote/However, the National Defense Service Medal is awarded to all veterans who served honorably between January 1961 and August 1974, and is therefore not indicative as to whether the appellant was actually stationed in the Republic of Vietnam. U.S. Dep't. of Defense Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, Appendix D at D-17, July 1990.

The Vietnam Service Medal is awarded to veterans who served between July 1965 and March 1973 in Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia in direct support of operations in the Republic of Vietnam. Similarly, the veteran's receipt of this medal is also not indicative of his presence in Vietnam because this medal was awarded to those veterans who served in Thailand. Id. at D-20.

Finally, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal was awarded to all service personnel who served in South Vietnam or who served outside of the geographical limits of Vietnam and contributed direct support to the forces in Vietnam. U.S. Dep't. of Defense Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, at 7-7, September 1996.

Therefore, the veteran's receipt of this medal is also not indicative of his actual service in the Republic of Vietnam.

Because the veteran did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam, he is not entitled to presumptive service connection for diabetes mellitus based on exposure to herbicides. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 (a)(6)(iii); 3.309(e).

Here is another good case, on denial, where the Board referenced two incidents of use of Agent Orange in Thailand and it should be noted that there were more incidents since reported, eg, spraying in Southern Thailand and several usage in the Northeast region of Thailand.     Even my wife, a Laotian refugee, while living in Nong Khai Province recalls the bunkers they built and were warned when the "yellow spray" came down to take cover !     The U.S. government still wishes to maintain a position adversarial to veterans that served in (only) Thailand.

re: Citation Nr: 0504005   Decision Date: 02/15/05,   Laos (presumtive) ..

Quote/The veteran claims that he was forced to eject from his plane over Laos in August 1967 and was stranded in a jungle in Laos for two hours before he was rescued. The veteran's service medical records and flight record support his claim that he ejected from his plane over hostile territory. Giving the veteran the benefit of the doubt, the record appears to indicate that he was in Laos and is presumed to have been exposed to herbicides (e.g., Agent Orange). 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 2002). There is no medical evidence of diabetes during service or for many years thereafter. An army hospital medical record from May 2001 notes the veteran had abnormal blood sugar. A VA examination in July 2002 shows that he has been diagnosed as having Type II diabetes mellitus, and the disease has been manifest to a compensable degree. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.119, Diagnostic Code 7913 (2004). Accordingly, the Board finds that the veteran's diabetes was incurred in service on a presumptive basis, and service connection is warranted.

Citation Nr: 0515986   Decision Date: 06/14/05

Quote/The decision review officer noted in his October 2003 Report of Contact that further research on herbicide agents used in Thailand indicated that Agent Orange was used in only two locations in Thailand, the Replacement Training Center for the Royal Thai Army at Pranburi in 1964 and 1965 and the Bor Fai Airport in Hua Hin in 1964 and 1965. Based on this research, the RO concluded that there was no record of Agent Orange being used or sprayed where the veteran was stationed while in Thailand, and that no Agent Orange was used or sprayed during the twelve-month period that the veteran was stationed in Thailand.

The Hua Hin incident made major headlines and of course, with the assistance of our Thailand allies, covered up nicely.     Interesting, the boldness in which the government (and Board) makes these deceptive claims.     What about NKP?     What about Udorn?     What about Korat, Satahip, Ubon?     I could go on and on, but without de-classified (official) documents, the government with the rules of evidence will prevail .. irregarless of §§ 5107, ie, the so-called "benefit of the doubt" clause.

Thailand Scandal   (Limited to 1964-65)   .. common sense .. jungles grow back faster than that and when I was there in 1968 (January) until January, 1970 .. the jungles were cleared back and I do remember mosquito spraying and the odd smell, but do not have recollection of defoliant spraying (personally and honestly.)

Continue

    "Among these methods was “defoliating jungle growth along selected routes,” using herbicides such as Agent Orange “to improve visibility.”[2] Already being sprayed in South Vietnam, herbicides had a military purpose of clearing land around roads and trails so that enemy movements could be detected and stopped. The environmental and human consequences never entered the calculation; nor, with few exceptions, did the international legality of spraying ever trouble American leaders. By far the greater concern was preservation of secrecy, in case evidence of chemical use might be turned to Communist propaganda advantage."

    This is a document of evidence on Laos.     That's right .. borders Thailand and where until de-classification of the (literally) "Secret War" in Laos (1992-93,) was not acknowledged by the U.S. government either.

    For article details,   "Agent Orange in Laos: Documentary Evidence"

    Footnote Ref #2:   Jacob Van Staaveren, Interdiction in Southern Laos 1960-68 (Washington: Center for Air Force History, 1993), p. 96.

    "Declassified documents do record the aircraft used for Air Force operations: mostly C-123s from the Ranch Hand operations in South Vietnam, as well as a limited number of F-4s. Both types were flown from Bien Hoa air base as well as off ships in the South China Sea.

        At one point, military authorities proposed establishing a Thailand-based spray capability;[10] whether this ever occurred is unknown, although herbicide tests were conducted at Thai air bases as early as 1964-65.[11]"

Footnotes:

[10]   Agenda Item for SEACORD meeting, August 19, 1969; Disposition Form to Chief of Staff, Subject: Defoliation Operation, January 18, 1969 (declassified).

[11]   Deutsche Presse-Agentur (Bangkok), “United States denies Thai dumpsite contains Agent Orange,” April 22, 1999.

    FYI, this article was written in an "expanded version" August, 2002 by Andrew Wells-Dang.     I'd say a few years after "the cat was let out of the bag."     In govt-lingo, that's "de-classified."

"Whether defoliation continued after 1970 remains an open question. As a result of increased public outcry, restrictions began to be placed on herbicide use by the US military. In March 1971, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird requested that he personally approve any herbicide operations in “Laos, Cambodia, or Thailand.”[31] Air Force records show that UC-123 planes, whose sole purpose had been listed as “defoliation,” conducted 860 sorties over Laos from January-June 1971, but no further details are given.[32]"

Footnotes:

[31] Buckingham, p. 178.

[32] 7th Air Force, Monthly Command Status Reports, June 1969-December 1970 (declassified).

    Well, that's got me sprayed .. I mean, "covered."     .. January, 1970.     .. none of this "early 60's b.s."     .. a reference to Footnote [10] and the quote above, in red .. 1964-65 .. right.

"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."

Footnotes:

[33] For more information on missing data, see Andrew Wells-Dang, Roger Rumpf, and Jacqui Chagnon, “The Secret Spraying of Herbicides in Laos and Cambodia,” Interchange, Spring 2002 (http://www.ffrd.org/indochina/news.html#herbicides).
[34] Jacques Decornoy, “Une compagnie privee americaine participe a la lutte contra la guerilla,” Le Monde (Paris), April 20, 1968, p. 2.
[35] Robert Kaylor, “Despite Critics, Defoliation Continues in Vietnam,” Los Angeles Times, January 4, 1970, p. E10.
[36] 7th Air Force, Monthly Command Status Reports, June 1969-December 1970.
 

Assertions by Veterans of Herbicide Spraying in Thailand

    "In a May 1998 statement, the veteran asserted that he was in Thailand during service, that herbicide was sprayed in Thailand, and that he had leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as a result. That claim was denied in June, the veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement in July, a Statement of the Case was issued later that month, and the veteran filed a Substantive Appeal in August 1998."

    -- Citing No. 0000096   Decision Date: 01/04/00

    See also Okinawa 1998 BVA Ruling Cover-Up     Anderson AFB/Guam Ruling

  .. DOD stated "[there] was no use or storage of Agent Orange or herbicides here."


For more claims and case studies, please visit

    "In statements dated in May and June 2000, the appellant stated that Agent Orange was flown into Thailand on airplanes in drums, was off loaded, and emptied into tanker trunks and planes. She suggested that the veteran could have been exposed to Agent Orange when one of the drums containing the herbicide possibly spilled at Ubon Air Force Base, or from spraying that was done around the perimeter of Ubon. She also indicated that the veteran could have received exposure to Agent Orange when rainwater washed away Agent Orange residue from the planes while they were at Ubon.     Perimeter Illustration /NKP

    -- Citing No. 0320491 Decision Date: 08/18/03

The appellant submitted an excerpt from Chemical & Biological Warfare: America's Hidden Arsenal, which was received at the RO in June 2000, which indicates during the Oconus Defoliation Test, chemical agents were applied by air in 1964 and 1965 in Thailand.

Of record is an August 2000 electronic mail message from the Director of the United States Armed Service Center for Research of Unit Records. The Director indicated that herbicide testing, including Agent Orange testing, occurred in Thailand in the early and mid-1960's, specifically 1964, at Pran Buri, which was located at an isolated site in the jungle. The Director indicated that he had been unable to find any other documentation that indicates that Agent Orange was sprayed around military installations in Thailand.

Of record is an August 2000 letter from the RO to the appellant. The RO indicated that Pran Buri was located in a seaside province approximately 278 kilometers south of Bangkok, Thailand. The RO indicated that chemical testing was also performed at Bo Fai, Thailand, which was located in the same general area as Pran Buri. The RO indicated that the veteran was stationed in Ubon, Thailand, which was located approximately 629 kilometers northeast of Bangkok, Thailand.

"US chemical weapons testing scandal in Thailand"   June, 1999   "Buried but alive: Agent Orange is still on active duty in Thailand"   November, 1999.     "U.S. Government tries to hide Agent Orange use in Thailand"   August, 2002     First, the government denies bases in Thailand, then covers up the messes it has made (that's spelled "liability") and last conducts a secret war from the Northeast of Thailand against Laos and Cambodia which by the way started de-classifying in 1992.     Who do you believe?

    "The USASCRUR noted that they had reviewed the ship's history for the USS GEORGE CLYMER (APA-27), and that it showed at the beginning of 1963 the ship participated in "Exercise Jungle Drum II" which was a coordinated, bilateral jungle warfare exercise conducted in the Satahip area of Thailand with the Royal Thai Navy and Marine Corps units and the U.S. Amphibious Group."

    -- Citing No. 0321764 Decision Date: 08/28/03

    "The veteran maintained that he was exposed to Agent Orange while stationed in Thailand in June 1973 also. He added that it was common knowledge that the C-130 aircraft flew herbicides into Hau Ta Pau which was located near Sattahip, Thailand. Sattahip was a seaport. The veteran then explained that on one occasion, a C-130 landed onto the seaport in Thailand and the herbicide cargo was to be transferred from the aircraft to trucks and driven to Hau Ta Pau. But, while transferring the herbicide, a forklift operator dropped a pallet that contained four 55-gallon barrels and two of the barrels burst. Consequently, emergency personnel were called to clean up. During the clean-up process, the veteran stated that the chemicals were washed into the area where he worked. The veteran added that he and other personnel were evaluated, but they were told that the chemicals were harmless. It is noted that the veteran’s service personnel records show that he worked as an aircraft ground crewmember while in service."       -- Citing No. 9814055   Decision Date: 05/05/98



"At the April 2003 hearing, the veteran testified that he believes he may have been exposed to herbicides either from a leaking drum or from spraying of what he thought might be herbicides on the eastern side of the air base at the time he lived there. The veteran should be notified that to substantiate his claim he should submit or identify corroborating evidence as to the substance to which he was exposed along with medical evidence that his exposure to that substance is causally related to his current Type II diabetes mellitus."

    -- Citing No. 0327969   Decision Date: 10/17/03

Claim (unfairly) remanded by the Board for no apparent reason.

    He contended that his diabetes mellitus, Type II, was caused by exposure to herbicides in Thailand, during service. He related that there was a classified area next to his workstation that contained numerous 55-gallon drums of "possible and suspected hazardous chemicals".

    The veteran reported that on the Air Force Base where he was stationed, there was an enormous amount of stored chemical compounds, which may have included "pesticides and insecticides".

    In June 2005, the veteran's representative submitted voluminous military reports as well as an Internet article. Such records collectively reflect that herbicide defoliation testing was conducted at Eglin AFB in the 1960s. The veteran's representative also submitted a May 2005 e-mail from a veteran who was involved in conducting a survey of veterans regarding Agent Orange testing in Thailand, and who produced a report which was presented to Congress. The e- mail reflects that herbicide flight missions were flown from air bases in Thailand, including Takhli. In a June 2005 written brief, the veteran's representative essentially asserted that the veteran's diabetes mellitus, recurrent SVT, and rectal polyps are due to in-service exposure to herbicides or pe