No excuse for either the Army or the DOD, yep -- in the distribution, or military schools or special distribution to the Rand Corporation.     You want evidence?     Written by a USAF officer and faculty member of the USAF Academy, law professor?     How about a special series of historical reports on the Vietnam War, the CHECO SEA Project?     Now, if you run into some "wet back" V.A. staffer or worse, VSO .. VSO, give them a popsicle.     And, if they give you some jibberish about the "source being the Internet," politely (and diplomatically) as possible, tell them it is an official air force historical report and is so darn important (to cover up,) the government has attempted to keep in classified well after its normal life expectancy of 7 years...


  "[from] the Forward @ Base Defense Factors ...

"Emphasis is given to a brief analysis of the five attacks against USAF resouces .. [at] U-Tapao .."

    I left the quote/extract in "super-size" font because we live in a era of adults with McDonald's mentality and severely hampered IQs.     We are very happy that the V.A. offers employment to those that served and undoubtedly did not pursue higher education (beyond GED in many cases.)     The problem is that these same people that rise to their highest status of mediocricy make us all pay with their incompetence!

    What can we do when the V.A. staff lacks compentence in significant areas of law, judicial adjudication skills and have difficulty reading?

    What follows is the result.     The St. Petersburg (FL) VARO came to a conclusion that the U-Tapao veteran "wasn't there" during the period of the (report) attack analysis and therefore, was not exposed to herbicides.     How exter-sensial.   sp?   (To steal a joke from a GIECO commercial.)



  "[from] the Scope @ Report Format ...

"Chapter III is concerned with the physical defenses of the bases.     Detailed comparisons are made of the six major Royal Thai bases hosting hosting tenance USAF combat operations.     Special emphasis is given to the employment of various devices and tools useful in the art of base defense."

.. super-sized

The issue: we have an agency entrusted with the care and well-being of our nation veterans that can not read.     VCAA/2000 reform wasn't the solution.     What is?     A: fire their sorry asses!

For more on this (pitiful) shit, read Air Force Times recent article about "Crap in; crap out ...", GAO report on VA Claim Backlog due to "inadequate training."     .. fire their sorry asses.


  "[the] report
  actually contradicts the veteran's theory .."

Detail Passage for above     quote

The only thing that is blatantly (and arrogantly)
contradictive is the government, the DOD, and the V.A.
position on "use of herbicides in Thailand."

  National Disgrace

    Lies .. cover-up ..

[spraying was limited to areas]
  .. not near U.S. personnel

    Using the "government line," herbicide test spraying in Thailand were conducted only in 1964 and 1965 and in limited areas away from military installations where American forces lived and worked.     This, of course, was a lie and until this Extract was released in September, 2007 from the official air force report, will be disclosed.

Point in Fact    The Army moved in around 1961 and began construction projects all over Thailand from Thai military support, bases, camps, and Friendship Highway to link the Deep Water Port in Satahip (bypass Bangkok) and feed the Air Force installations in Korat, Udorn and NKP. Most of these camps are active, turned over to the Thai counterpart. If anyone thinks that the USAF CHECO report marks the only years (1968-72) that our government employed the use of herbicides, you don't know how well our government/army covered up this liability issue. Today, the VA denies disability compensation to veterans that served in support of the Vietnam War; in the Pacific theatre and have made beggers out of most of them until they die.     It truly is a national disgrade.     See Army Disgrace.
Army/Air Force Military Installation Proximity Chart
Area	AF Base	Army Base       "Vintage 1967"
Satahip	U-Tapao	Camp Samae San, Deep Water Port, Vayama Map
Kanchanaburi	Thai Army	Testimony from Dick Okland Vietnam/Thai Vet
Central	Takhli	Lop Buri Special Forces
Central	Korat	Camp Friendship, USARTHAI
Northeast	Udorn/NKP	Camp Ruam Chit Chai, Sakon Nakon, Camp Sinthope Sarakham, ASA, CIA
Cambodia	Ubon	ASA, eg, Camp Mukdahan

Conclusion



I find it very ironic under the circumstances that the court and V.A. would deny benefits to Thailand veterans when their testimony corroborated each others stories.

Furthermore, who is to deny those Thailand veterans that served in the "early years" from 1961-1967 when these bases were under construction and herbicides used?

Logical .. common sense ...

re:   Korat - Bob Davies     - "I was at Korat Air Base 4/65 to 4/66." Doesn't a court judge use the rule of common sense where a party lies once, nothing more is considered. At least, without evidence ...
The DOD has lied for four decades and no one knows to what extent.


Our (beautiful) government wouldn't allow such dioxins/toxins to be used
if they willing knew of the medical problems it would cause our soldiers.
No?     See Criminal Investigation of Monsanto Corporation
- Cover-up of Dioxin Contamination in Products
- Falsification of Dioxin Health Studies

Case Review: Adkison, David

.. under construction.

Case Documents


Illustration:   Statement of Case   (Page 1)     Evidence and Adjudicative Actions

Notice of Disagreement:


Physician's Statement

How you respond to these questions when interviewed by a (V.A.) physician could have long lasting affect on your disability rating.

Diabetes Disability Rating
The claimant has given himself a 40 percent disability rating where those that check off the last box, a 100 percent rating.

Sec. 4.119 Schedule of ratings--endocrine system.

Part 4 of CFR 38 pertains to the rating of your medical condition.



Here is a Pot Pouri of sections you should become familiar with.


Secondary Conditions (Complications of Diabetes)

By checking off any of these secondary conditions, you increase your disability rating.

Example:

I have been diagnosed with Diabetes (Type II) since 1992, a year after it was supposed to be acknowledged by the V.A. and the National Sciences Academy as a presumptive disease.)     In the past 16 years, it has progressed where I receive outpatient care at my local federal hospital, experience emergency room episodes requiring ICU hospitalization and of course, the swings of a diabetic with horrible hypoglycemic episodes where you can lose consciouness.

My V.A. health records indicate that my "diabetes is out of control." ¹     This, in itself, is a serious medical comment with implications for "complications."     Complications like chronic renal failure (kidneys) which I have the past three years.     Affect your eyes to the point where you become blind and your nervous system with all sorts of adverse complications from simple sense of touch and feeling to complete lack of same for sensing heat and skin burns.

Cardiovasular:   well, need we say more?     Heart-related conditions have tremendous impact on your overall well-being, and put you at high risk for strokes and heart attacks that could be fatal.     The associated circulations problems then could lead to amputations of your extremities sometimes preceded by infections that can not be managed to a combination of poor wound healing and infection. I have weekly appointments at the air force hospital here in Las Vegas for the Wound Care Center since a 4-day ICU stay at another private hospital in town in early December.   Acne and other skin sores thrive on a moist environment and the edema condition ("elephant legs") was perfect for out-of-control sores and blistering.

The affect of poor circulation in such extremities can lead to other infecious complications that require immediate hospitalization in an attempt to save those limbs.     One week when my nurse removed by feet/leg wraps and noted a redness in my skin, she immediately called for an orderly to take me in a wheelchair downstairs to the emergency room .. talk about scaring the shit out of you.     Fortunately, it was a mild (starting) infection caught early enough that I could manage with oral antibiotics.     The next week, it was cleared up.

My lower legs have suffered through phospherous blook infection leading to skin sores and edema associated with my kidney failutre.     I am getting better from "hardly could walk" to "walking short distances without a cane."

¹ How do you determine if your diabetes is out of control?

Easy.     Diabetes is an infliction that affects your body ability to use the source of energy found in your blood glucose, sugar.     Diabetic patients that take oral medications or insulin shots to assist your body and the lack of natural insulin produced by your pancreas to assist you in transferring the glucose found in your blood to your body cells for energy. Now, the lack of the ability to transfer the large amounts of glucose results in higher than normal levels of glucose in your blood which can affect your kidneys where the body attempts to remove the access by such means as your kidneys which can ultimately lead to kidney failure as in my case.

Normal glucose levels are anywhere from 70 to 130.     The old standard was no higher than 120, but scientist have found that there is a tolerance level with age.     As a diabetic, if you can not maintain your glucose levels in the normal range, your diabetes is technically out of control.

For instance, when I became a kidney dialysis patient and dependent on regular dialysis treatments, I chose a home (independent) method which after two years, I found was adversely affecting my body and overall health, ie, edema complications and "elephant legs."     And, because each of the four required daily treatments (seven days a week) were using fluids packed with sugar content, I experienced horrible glucose levels, even with the introduction of insulin R, in combination with my standard insulin NPH shots.     You would (using a sliding scale) experience lows that would produce hypoglycemic episodes which can be dangerous and you could fall into a coma.

A word about (glucose) lows and hypoglycema

Low glucose is relative to your body tolerance.     I have heard of diabetics that could tolerate glucose levels lower than normal where normal is 70.     With the dialysis abuse of my body, I would start to shake and sweat above normal levels, or 150.     And, to avert a hypoglycemia episode, always have something with concentrated sugar available, eg, a candy bar or orange juice.     Do not take too much as your body will then have a surplus in your blood after absorption and an unhealthy level of glucose in your blood.     Test your blood glucose level, and act appropriately with medication or insulin.

A1C Glucose Index

The "A1C" is a lab test of your blood where an index on your average glucose level for the past six months is determined.     Your goal is between 6.0 and 7.0 where 6.0 is equal to 120 and 7.0 is equal to 140, 20 (glucose) level points apart.     Out of control would be anything above 7.0.     I used to be happy with A1Cs in the 7.2 to 7.4 range, but today, I am lucky to be under 10.0!

Multiple injections

When you require more than one daily injection, your condition has progressed to the totally disabled level.     In my case, as far back as I can recall, I have taken 30 units in the morning and 15 units in the evening, NPH insulin.     With the complications of kidney failure and dialysis treatments at home, I had to start to introduce R insulin which is faster acting and can be dangerous if you do not test regularly and monitor your intake of insulin in what is termed a "sliding scale."     You will know when you are there, if you take advantage of the associated healtcare education program available thru the V.A.

Medical Disclaimer

Because I seem to write with a substantial amount of knowledge, many veterans with similar problems turn to me feeling that they can talk easier and get faster answers.     I can not diagnosed your condition either over the phone or in person.     If you read something that seems to apply to you, then you are probably right.     Otherwise, always seek out your primary care physician or if diabetes related, a diabetes specialist.

When I was recovering from a large toe ulcer on my left foot, I went to bi-weekly orthpedic clinic and ask my diabetes questions of the ortho surgeon.     One such session, the surgeon stepped out of the room and the nurse quietly said, "The surgeon knows bones, not diabetes."     I got her point.     Like anything else in life, diabetes is a specialty area and many general practiioners are not equipped with the knowledge to answer your questions.

Claim Supporting Documents

Here is a response to a "Need Reply" notice from my regional V.A. office,   Secondary Conditions   (Complications of Diabetes)     For a medical opinion, I solicited the opinion of my V.A. Primary Care Phyisician.     Always a good idea to include with critical complications that would adversely affect your disability rating, if not provided.

Now that you have a good idea about the rating system that follows the adjudication approval of your service connection, and your expectations in a optimum rating, here is the "V.A. math" -- not the "new math."     Combined Table

Now, let's say you have 100% diabetes rating, 100% renal (kidney) rating, and you have another half dozen related complications that amount to from 20% to 40% rating each.     My math says I am totally disabled and have a rating over 300% (or three 100% checks.)     Well, you can stop eyeing that corvette at the dealers because you will get no more than 100% rating.

Now using the Combined Chart and have a 90% rating and a 20% rating for another ailment.     You would expect to be rated at 100% (mathwise: 110%.)     Wrong.     By the table "forumula," you are entitled to a 92% rating.     It's the "V.A. math."

Review

Now, of course, there are many other complications to diabetes and my condition was meant to be an illustration of a 100% disabled veteran.     And, if you did not come to that conclusion, totally disabled, I suggest you get away from that "new math" and stick to "1 plus 1 is 2," the k.i.s.s. method.

SOC: Statement of Case

Let's open a separate window for the three pages of David's SOC we have access to:   Page 1   Page 36   Page 37  

First of all, our esteemed (incompetent) adjudicator at the VARO/St. Petersburg needs a lesson in English -- not necessarily grammar, but word usage and/or spelling.     "Reasons and Bases" .. should be "Reasons and Basis."     Not (military) bases, but "basis" (of action.)     Oh well, I've seen a half dozen, if not a dozen, similar mistakes (and dates) in my SOC.

The reason I emphasize this paragraph is more than obvious to me, but I want to see how many of you see what I am attempting to emphasize.     Do you see it?     Yes/no .. it is the reference(s) to "Vietnam" -- under the provisions of law that apply to Vietnam veterans!     David is a Thailand veteran, and never served (or visited) Vietnam.

How was this mistake made, ie, citing the section of law for Vietnam?

Understanding that the veteran does not know how to file or complete a 21-526, it must be his VSO.     Whether the VSO (up front) sat down with David and went over a check-list sheet which would provide all the information for completing the basic application, or not is unknown.     I suspect not.

The V.A. adjudicator, like the VSO, made a simple conclusion:   the claimant was alleging service connection under the law that applies to Vietnam veterans and not Thailand veterans.     This happens with mediocre staffing; that read things into a claim and therefore, cause harm to the claimant.     In this case, the claimant's claim has been reviewed and denied and he is left in limbo because neither the VSO or the V.A. adjudicator knew what they were doing.

If the V.A. adjudicator knew there was a substantive error in the initial filing, it would be important, ie, "Duty to Assist," return the claim to the VSO and claimant.     The VSO has no excuse.     No.     The claim processing is automated and the VSO only has to fill in the blanks on a computer screen.

Now "here comes" the "DOD List," first paragraph, followed by more assumptions on service in Vietnam, irrelevant
-- paragraph 2.

That is why I emphasize the importance of the admission by the government, the DOD; the V.A. that the list should include all bases in Thailand with dates from 1968 to (thru) 1972.     If everything was legitimate instead of corrupt, my "whistle blowing" notice to the Arlington, Virginia contractor given responsibility for updating the list based upon the official USAF CHECO report, would have been done by now.     Notices would have been distributed to all V.A. regional offices and the notice that I gave would have been published in some V.A. newsletter, ie, "Review Agent Orange."     But, it hasn't been.

What follows is the same incompetent adjudicator at the St. Petersburg V.A. regional office jumping to conclusions based upon "the selected pages."     Wrong.     The pages were not selected, they were decllassified by the air force and made available as an "extract release."

Key:   "[establish] herbicide treatment prior to 1972."

It is not the responsibility of the claimant to (a) hold the hands of the V.A. adjudicators, or (b) walk them through the USAF CHECO report with states explicitly that the regular use of herbicides for (at minimal) the base defense perimeters took place from 1968 thru 1972.     The year that the claimant served at U-Tapao RTNAB was within the report window for exposure to herbicides.     The V.A. adjudicator, bent on denying the claimant's claim at any expense, cites a passage where the report author was speaking of an incident in 1972 at U-Tapao.     That is not necessary.     The claimant was there from 1971 to 1972 and there was vegetation control using herbicides (implied) -- and it does not matter what his occupational specialty area was.

This is a complete injustice to the claimant and misuse of the authority given to the adjudicator.     What ever happen to the "Benefit of the Doubt" and "finding in favor of the claimant where the balance of negative and positive exist in favor of the claimant?"

The adjudicator treats the official air force report, in the Contemporary Historical Examination of Current Operations (CHECO) family, as some "article."     An article that says many things about several air force bases in Thailand and something about "[speaks] to perimeter defense concerns."     The basis of the report is perimeter defense, see title:   "Base Defense in Thailand."     The official report was written by an Air Force Academy law professor based upon several interviews at each of the bases touching upon incidents that were not declassified and the overall content, and introduction indicates the purpose of the report was to identify activity (events) from 1968 thru 1972 at the installations in Thailand for base defense and/or base perimeter vegetation control.     They didn't spray ONCE in 1972, after May, 1972, when the claimant was not there and they certainly sprayed in 1971 and 1970 and 1969, etc.

The V.A. adjudicator has done this claimant (and class of Thailand veterans) a very big disservice in interpretting the report as stated above.

In this broken administration system known as Veterans Affairs, it seems that reform of procedures would not be adequate.     That the entire staff from the supervisors to the adjudicators need to be terminated.     Their DROs, reviews, and administrative actions lack in assisting claimants with many needs beyond healthcare.     How did we get here?     Lack of oversight by our Congress, if you ask me.     "The fox guarding the henhouse," running loose with abuse in the judicial system to delay claims/claimants for decades, and the bonus provided by the Congress:   "no penalties or interest on the claims denied due process to the claimants retro pay."

Suggestion


When you print out the various sebsite documents, may I suggest you indicate to your browser options to remove URL references.     It is important, legally speaking, to not infer that the website is the "source" and the basis is the official U.S. Air Force historical department report.

DRO Review

Let's take a technical review using the USAF CHECO report, "Base Defense in Thailand from 1968 to 1972," created 18 Feb 73, classified "SECRET."     The VARO/St Petersburg adjudicator chose to take (using his words) "a selected passage" and interpret as the sole incident [at U-Tapao.]     It was an illustration, an example.     It's basis comes from the available research the author, Captain Barrow, USAF, a professor in law at the Air Force Academy, was able to obtain in his interviews at the various military installations in Thailand.     See the report footnotes; specifically #119 - 122.

Point in Fact:   from the top ...

Chapter III.   Physical Defenses and Limitations -   Page 57





Chapter III.   Physical Defenses and Limitations (Continued) -   Page 58

The adjudicator treats the official air force report, in the Contemporary Historical Examination of Current Operations (CHECO) family, as some "article."     An article that says many things about several air force bases in Thailand and something about "[speaks] to perimeter defense concerns."     The basis of the report is perimeter defense, see title:   "Base Defense in Thailand."

The adjudicator's "selective exclusion"; ignoring the declassified release initial pages is a complete and unfair review of the claimant's file bent on denying his benefits is obvious.     The abuse of authority, the arrogance displayed by such V.A. staffers is horrific.

Excerpt (Explicit)

Pg-58

[defenses,] all designed to expose the enemy to an increased risk of observation and detection. No base considered itself secure because of an inpenetrable perimeter[,]   See footnote 124.

[To] further aid in observation, herbicides were employed to assist in the difficult task of vegetation control.     Use of these agents was limited by such factors as the ROE and supply problems.

Pg-64

Limitations

Geographic constraints provided many problems in the USAF base defense posture in Thailand.     Contiguous population centers at many of the bases severly limited opportunities for both observation and effective counterfire.     Further, tropical vegetation sided by seasonal monsoon rains grew almost faster than it could be controlled.     Dense jungles were rated as the greatest threat to the defenses at U-Tapao.   See footnote 137.     Other natural features such as streams [next page]

Pg-68

[process,] and the inability to go beyond the fences, significantly limited the use of those agents at many bases.   See footnote 145.

The 1969 ROE required advanced approval of the Ambassador for all "new weapons" introduced into Thailand.

By the numbers ...

CHECO Report Title:   "Base Defense in Thailand from 1968 to 1972"
Official USAF Historical Volume Series:   Contemporary Historical Examination of Current Operations (CHECO)

Statements:

(1)   [defenses,] all designed to expose the enemy

(2)   [To] further aid in observation, herbicides were employed to assist in the difficult task of vegetation control.

(3)   Further, tropical vegetation sided by seasonal monsoon rains grew almost faster than it c ould be controlled.

(4)   significantly limited the use of those agents at many bases.

(5)   For the purposes of this analysis, we must ignore the "Base Analysis" incidents which does nothing more than illustrate specific events at the various bases, eg, Pg-75 reference for U-Tapao.

Regurgitation

Purpose:   [designed] to expose the enemy (base perimeters, defenses)

Difficult Task:   [herbicides] were employed .. vegetation control

Seasonal Monsoon Rains:   [tropical vegetation] grew almost faster than it c ould be controlled.

Extent:   [use] of those agents at many bases.

"Connecting the points"

Period covered, 1968 thru 1972, where, Thailand installations, used, herbicides/agents, for, vegetation/tropical vegetation (jungles,) frequency, at minimum annual monsoon seasons.

Irrelevant Issues

*   [Various] "Base Analysis" (..including U-Tapao) *

*   Base Attack(s) Summary (Cause/affect of Base Defenses)

* Episodes, events and other report sections, eg, Personnel Resources; Training are irrelevant to the overall message that "herbicides were used at the military installations in Thailand" -- unlike the official DOD statement that they were not; not used near U.S. personnel.

Contradictions

(a)   Is this report an article or significant report?

  Answer:   report over 100 pages (classified) in length   -- see Table of Contents; about the authors.

  Articles published normally are 2-3 pages in length.

Chapter III.   Physical Defenses and Limitations (Continued) -   Page 58

mounted NODs,     Unfortunately, no base had sufficient numbers of these devices to permit visual observations of the entire base perimeter.     To further aid in observation, herbicides were employed to assist in the difficult task of vegetation control.     Use of these agents was limited by such factors as the ROE and supply problems.     Excerpt of Page 58     ROE = Rules of Engagement

Conclusions

*   The V.A. RO Adjudicator did a mediocre job

*   The V.A. RO Adjudicator is incompetent *

*   The V.A. RO Adjudicator abusing his authority; under 5103A duty to assist and 5107 **

*   The V.A. is bent on denying claimants benefits ***

* can't read       ** Benefit of the Doubt Doctrine versus well-grounded evidence; rules of law

Note:   if the adjudicator found the supporting statement by the claimant contradictory to the other key documents submitted, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the V.A. RO to request an explanation?

*** The V.A. administrators chose to take the report extract out of context in such a twisted selective passage moment as to ignore:   (a)   dates of tour of duty in Thailand and (b) the breath of the report covering years 1968 thru 1972 -- not just an expisode after May, 1972 when the claimant had departed command.     Such methods or tactics are disgraceful and the impact being placed in a hold for appeal court hearing for months or years under the circumstances of health and financial conidition is inexcusable.

Review

Because the V.A. adjudicator assigned to David's claim has initially denied it, I will assume that his VSO requested a preliminary DRO (local) review (in Pensacola) before having the necessitate of an appeal with the Board of Veterans Appeal (BVA) Court.

This is where the system really shows why it is broken and the current staff of adjudicators are either insufficiently trained or incompetent to a level that reviews and initial examination of claims has a low performance level which causes extreme financial hardship to the claimants involved.

Now, the claimant is subject to possibly years of anxiety waiting for a hearing with the BVA and the associated bureaucratice delays once the matter is settled and returned to the VARO for final rating action.     Yes, that's right -- granting service connection is only part one of the process.     Now, the various medical conditions of the claimant must be evaluated and rated per the V.A. regulations (see above.)


At this time, your VSO should submit a VA Form 9 which specifies how the claimant wants his appeal hearing handled.     This form also includes an area at the bottom where you describe why you feel you should have a hearing on appeal.     If the space is not large enough, you can attach an attachment.

Review

Your VSO has submitted a cover submittal form and the VA Form 9 plus attachment.

Thailand vets should integrate the ruling comments made on behalf of an Okinawan veteran (1961) where such presumptive diseases as they apply to the provisions of the law for Vietnam veterans has become recognized no matter where the claimant served:

See Presumptive Diseases Table for details.

Note:   there is absolutely nothing in this claimant's file to indicate that the VSO understood and followed the regulatons and law as it applies specifically to Thailand veterans and of course, the issue of "presumptive diseases."     Remember, as a Thailand vet, your medical condition doesn't automatically become presumed and that it is the responsibility of the claimant to substantiate the relation of his disease/medical condition with the exposure of herbicides.     It just so happens that diseases such as diabetes type II (with its known complications) are automatically presumed just like Vietnam vets under the law because the BVA has determined same.

National Disgrace




Rule No. 1 -
    "never deny something that is in writing somewhere."

    The United States Air Force, Government, Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs Agency have chosen not to follow the fair rules of judicial discovery and its responsibilty to assist veterans with their claims.     In fact, with their knowledge of such classified reports unavailable to claimants, it amounts to a cover-up.

    The Air Force own guidelines for FOIA exemptions indicates that such documents should be made available to claimants pre-adjudication to be fair.

    That is what I am fighting for right now.

    Acknowledgement of the CHECO report by DOD (DOD List)
and the VA.

    This issue should be referred to as a simple reference to same.

    11 Oct 07 and counting ...     (Details)

    No DOD List update .. no acknowledgement either agency-wide or by Congress.
 
Writing your District Congressman, Jeff Miller (R-FL)

Congressman Miller responded to David's request for help with:



Confusing - the congressman's last statement regarding "filing a claim" does not make sense as David has already filed a claim and is at the DRO stage ...

On behalf of David, I have prepared a rebuttal to the response by the congressman, rebuttal.

See also Extract Release of CHECO Report too.

Under Construction

As this Case Review for Thailand veteran David Adkison proceeds, I will pick apart the evaluation made by the St Peterburg Regional Office and point out mistakes in his (claim) filing which by the way, was prepared by a DAV VSO.     Thailand vets do not fall under the blanket assumption provisions found in 38 U.S.C. 1116 for "service (or visitation) in Vietnam," a presumptive exposure incidence.     Thailand vets fall under 38 U.S.C. 1110 and your basic disease caused by active duty, ie, service connection.     Pre-existing conditions are the same, just aggravated by active duty.

Stay tuned for more material and illustrations that could affect how you file your claim.     At this point, the four (4) pages that David provided me for my interpretation have been published and the above should be considered a "first draft;" subject to change without notice.

Yours truly,   Franco.

Remember ..
  "United we can conquer"
      "Divided we are denied.."

    Your support now will help bring Goliath to his knees.     Allowed to go unchecked, (intimidating,) we all lose.