Talk about injustice: No group has done more to protect American values and preserve democracy than the more than 25 million living veterans of the U.S. armed services. Yet as recently as a decade ago, military vets and their families were routinely shut out of the justice system when disagreements arose over the benefits to which they’re entitled.     - Excerpt from "Soldiers of Justice".

Intro This is by no means an official VA website. You get honesty and things you can use here. Legal Disclaimer Notice     Fair Use Notice     VA Bulletin, re:   "Claims Fixers"

Franco Brand Bull If you do not see the Superman logo, you can not be sure whether you have genuine (Franco) bull.

    Here I am, 2 (plus) years into my own claim, and in a dream, it comes to me, why don't I gather Mac Flight Data for S.E.A. for evidentiary purposes?     It should have been as obvious as the nose on our face.     Unfortunately, from the feedback that I got from both the VA DRO, RO and VSO with a definite conflict of interest, citings of legal precedence that should be integrated and become part of adjudication policy and such forms of evidence may be ignored until you get to the BVA, or a court of law.

    With the incompetence and mediocre performance of the ROs in adjudicating claims, I believe the average Vietnam Era claimant should look forward to not having his claim resolved until heard before the court where you can rationalize with a judge, present citings applicable to your case and such circumstantial evidence as Mac Flight Data.     See a sample sheet.

    In the Pacific Theatre, the majority of soldiers got a ride with the Air Force either out of Travis AFB, California, or McChord AFB, Washington.

    This fact, or statement in itself, may be thought of as "circumstantial evidence" which you would not be denied as a common practice.

    Historically, the Army and the Air Force was one large military service during World War II.     Many of the (later) Air Force Bases (AFB) were part of a larger Army Base (or, what the army traditional would call a "Fort," a throwback to the Cavalry days.)

    For the Westcoast, McChord AFB is next to Fort Lewis, Washington where the Overseas Replacement Depot (that I was an Assistant Team Leader) for 18 months is located at.     We would process, on average, between 300-500 army personnel each day; billet them, and then transport them to McChord for final movement to S.E.A.

    Travis AFB, California had a similar relation with Oakland Army Base, although, Oakland was quite some distance from Travis -- unlike (Ft) Lewis - McChord.     In fact, McChord had a back gate that was convenient for residence of both the army and air force bases to commute to and from without going off base, to the civilian highway.


Exception:   in some of the initial division of task force movements where the entire unit personnel from a stateside army base was moved to S.E.A., it was by the Navy and ship.

    When I was stationed at Ft Hood, Texas, the Americal Divison was formed and they all shipped out by ship transport.     Most army personnel agree, it is a very uncomfortable way to go when reassigned.

    Even the two photos found on this page for army personnel being transported on huge cargo-type air force equipment, it beats going by ship on the ocean any day.     BTW, these photos (I believe) are for a Task Force of military police, engineers, initial set up camp type personnel from Ft Hood the beginning of the build up in S.E.A.     This, too, could be considered an exception to common practice.

    "Most personnel during the war were sent individually as replacements for units already in country."

    For the day, the primary equipment were civilian airliners contracted for transport.     You would see the colors of "United," "Pan Am," "TWA," and others given contracts by the Air Force MAC command, the logistics arm of the Air Force.

    The photo of myself at Tan Son Knut, you can see in-country aircraft taxing on the runway behind the huge Boeing-707.   (Click on the photo for a larger view.)

    In-country, or in the local Theatre from Thailand to Vietnam to the Phillipines, we know that the C-130, a cargo format aircraft was the workhorse.     This aircraft was not practical for seating (and comfort) for large amounts of personnel, with their baggage.     For emergency air lift, of course, but for weekly logistics, no.     You will see in the Mac Flight Data Sheet references to emergency routes.     For instance, I have been told that out of Korat, you could fly direct to DaNang versus first through Bangkok (and Don Muang) and then to Saigon (Tan Son Knut.)

Objective

    All I am trying to do is build a case for the obvious, the common practice.     I have mentioned the primary exceptions, and of course, there are more special movement on civilian carriers where military personnel (and their families) may be given special treatment based upon their rank, etc.

    Flying Space-A across the Pacific (out of Hickam AFB, Hawaii) can be a wild experience.     Mac Flights from the Westcoast may arrive completely full and only space for those reserved/assigned while other times, you can jump on board and head to Japan, or Okinawa or Guam.     The seasoned military traveler plans for being "bumped" off a flight at every point and knows how to get temporary housing.     You also have to plan for being redirected (inconveniently) to another destination and work from there.     For instance, on return from Thailand, my wife and I were almost "bumped" at Clark AFB, Phillipines.     There were hundreds of Navy personnel heading back to the United States for discharge from the service.     Instead of the entire ship that these personnel were assigned to, they also went on Mac Flights for logistic convenience.

    Talking in the Clark Terminal to other Space-A passengers, I got a feel for how to get back home to USARPAC, Hawaii via Okinawa, or Guam, or Japan.     The Air Force during the Vietnam War had a huge travel network.

Help!

    I am sure that there are a lot of old "salty" Air Force personnel (and Army personnel) that either worked directly in Mac Terminals, or just may have kept such important documents from an era gone by.

    I want to document these services in such a way that any court judge will realize that it is not the exception, but the most common practice.     After all, Vietnam personnel were being transported to Thailand for R&R and guess where they started and finished?     Yep.     In-country, they would get a hop to Saigon (and Tan Son Knut) which could handle international civilian-contracted Mac flights, and from there to Thailand and Bangkok, Don Muang International.     Anything else really doesn't make sense from a point of view of practicality and logistics, and in this application, we are talking about "big" logistics!

    Thanks for any leads or help or documents you can provide.     The more we have published, the better it is for all veterans to claim the exposure to herbicides under the law and provision of "setting foot in Vietnam."

Remember - early days of unit movement - entire unit/task force by cargo-type air force equipment, or navy ship.     Invididually -- Mac flights.     Early days of the Vietnam War would be prior to 1967.     While things really heated up in mid-1967 to 1968.

    In a legal precedence for Thailand veterans, the M21-1 had the following quote:

"Boots on the ground" or "visitation to Vietnam"     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. See Veterans Benefits Administration Manual M21-1, Part III, Chapter 5, Par. 5.10(c) (July 1, 2004). Re:   WACO VBA Ruling   6/21/05

    Reference is accurate, although, not for the same logistics logic that I have been presenting here.     By 1967, Thailand had PXs all over the country and Bangkok, of course, was a shopper's dream.     The claimant that was granted may have wanted to emphasize things slightly different, but the fact is that most routes to Thailand were through Saigon.

Warmest regards,


Franco   (702) 363-3290