"We were exposed to herbicides
    while serving in Thailand."

      (Please say that ten times.)
We now have a copy of an official USAF CHECO secret report for the base defenses of Thailand that indicates the use of herbicides in maintaining perimeters of military installantions (and jungle control.)     Now, the "jungle control" may be subjective, but the brown that the use of herbicides caused is not.

    What ever you do, don't leave home without this report.

  GO TO VBA PREFACE           GO TO VBA SITE MAP


The Atrocity that is the V.A.

.. given the image of assistance

.. denying claims because the veteran
does not have everything ..
everything disclosed to him, ie, "duty to assist."

    You are about to file your claim for disability benefits based upon service connection and the presumption of exposure to herbicides in Thailand.     You go to your local VSO and provide him with your DD214 and make a supporting statement based upon your recollections 30 plus years ago.

    You are about to be denied.

    You may not know that for 10-12 months, but you can be sure that the government is going to make some flowery statements that your "plausible claim" under the law is not supported.

    You did not know that the government hid in documents classified "Secret" and subsequently de-classified, archived in a "tomb of historical database," and buried in a hundred page report on page 57.

re:   FOIA

    What surprised this advocate even more, though, was that the air force in sanitizing this classified report did not catch the spots related to the "use of herbicides" opening the door for all Thailand veterans to either re-open their claim or file a new claim.     See the USAF Cover Letter and De-Classified Sheets 19 Jul 94 - Today (6 October 2007) and marvel at the findings.     Some 13 years after the de-classification and based upon a retired air force veteran that not only served in Thailand, but provided installation perimeter security guard with his K-9 partner, requested via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) a copy of the report excerpts.

    Many of you may not be familiar with the red "Secret" coversheet always on top of a document or report classified same.     When I was company clerk in Thailand, my security clearance was only through "Confidential."     It wasn't until my assignment to the USARPAC Hqs where I may come in contact with many classified documents that my security clearance was upgraded to "Secret."

    For this CHECO report to be classified "Secret" tells me that the content was sensitive.     If you read through the correspondence provided with the report coversheets, you will see that the Air Force HRA (Historical Research Agency) in Maxwell AFB, Alabama forwarded the FOIA request to the Air Force Declassification Office at the Pentagon.     And, what follows is hardly the entire report, but excerpts de-classified for public consumption.


Point being ..

    What is a veteran, a disability claimant, supposed to do to substantiate their claim for disability compensation when the (adversarial) V.A. agency is not forth coming in providing said information under the reformed laws regarding duty to assist?     The ruling judge or panel thereof prepares a denial opinion, or same thing really, remand, that says every attempt was made and further investigate would be futile.



    "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."   - quote from my claim file by VA/RO/Reno (Nevada.)

    The only thing that is futile (and petty) is the position of the claimant, even represented by (legal) counsel.     Therefore, your disability claim was killed and there is nothing you can do about it.

    This CHECO report is a perfect example of this bureaucracy and the wall the claimant is up against.     The report was prepared the following year of operations in Thailand in 1973 and for another 21 years remained classified "Secret" until 19 Jul 94 at which time it was electronically transferred to the Air Force HRA unit and archived in a colossal database; never to be seen or heard from again for another 13 years (today.)     And, OSI (Office of Special Investigations) is still reviewing the volume of pages still classified.


    Now, I hope this graphic analogy has gotten through to you and I don't need to hit you over the head with a hammer to see that there is no way in hell that the veteran, three decades removed as a civilian with medical complications looks to the agency for technical assistance because it ain't going to be there, denied.

"We're unbiased arbitrators of the law with regard to veterans' rights and also to taxpayer interest."   - VA refutes claims ..   right.


    What follows is excerpts from denied or remanded claims by Thailand veterans that asserted that there exposure to herbicides occurred in Thailand and further affirmed that they did not serve in Vietnam (by chance.)

    [Congressman Lane] Evans also asked the Secretary [Rumsfeld] for an assessment of the use, testing or storage of Agent Orange, Agent Blue, Agent Purple, Agent White or other herbicides which contain dioxin at locations in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Puerto Rico and various locations in the United States.

    [However,] the congressman noted that the amount of herbicides used in some of these locations may have been small amounts for short term testing and may present no danger to populations.

    Evans indicated in his letter that veterans who are claiming service-connection of disabilities that have been associated with herbicide exposure, have had serious difficulty in proving exposure.

    If the Department of Defense has evidence that herbicides were used in particular areas, during specific periods of time, that information should be made public so that affected veterans may receive appropriate assistance in establishing their claims.

    He complained that it is more than 30 years since many of the herbicides were used, yet veterans are still having claims denied. This is because the Department of Defense has not been forthcoming with information concerning the locations where veterans may have been exposed and it is well past the time for full and open disclosure.

Source:   RAO Bulletin May 03     For more on Evans' inquiries, SAF Letter from USAF.

    It is very clear that since the end of reported herbicide spraying in S.E.A. (Thailand and otherwise,) in 1972 (January 7, 1971 in Vietnam by the way,) should provide to the veterans (and public) de-classified documents as we uncovered this "Defenses in Thailand" USAF CHECO official report/document.     This, of course, implys that thousands of Thailand vet claims (both dead and limping along medically,) must be re-opened, paid retro, and granted their right to disability compensation.     The only question that beseiges me is whether Congress should award triple punative damages and compensation because of such abuse of authority by the agency.

    See for yourself, go to the BVA Cases file and enter keyword "Thailand" and see how many of the following cases were either straight out denied or remanded for superficial document reasons.

How absurd is this?
Unjustly Remanded Case

"He also alleges that herbicides were being sprayed around the perimeter of the base."
- USAF Inventory Specialist (Korat RTAFB; '70-71)

.. ere is no presumption of exposure to herbicide agents
in Thailand.

The airman worked with this shit; stored it and undoubtedly handled the 55-gallon drums, but he has (drum roll) no proof.     Nada.

Do you think the "fox guarding the hen house" was about to tell him that there is a classified report regarding the use of herbicides in Thailand, specifically Korat, and that his allegations are justified?

Excerpt of Appeal Ruling:

"In this case, the veteran is not entitled to presumptive service connection because he never served in Vietnam during the Vietnam era.     Instead, he claims that he was exposed to herbicides while stationed at the Royal Thai Air Force Bases in Korat, Thailand from 1970 to 1971.     He maintains that he worked as an inventory specialist and he was responsible for maintaining a certain quantity of herbicides that were being used in Vietnam.     He also alleges that herbicides were being sprayed around the perimeter of the base.

In support of the veteran's claim, D.S. submitted a statement confirming that herbicides were being stored at the Air Force Based in Korat.     D.S. explained that he and the veteran were assigned to the base supply system and that their duties included counting and inspecting barrels containing chemicals which had arrived from supply depots in Vietnam. According to D.S., leaking chemical from some of the barrels was carried over the storage area and looked like a greasy tar pit. D.S. maintained that he and the veteran were exposed to these chemicals on their skin, in their food, and from the air they breathed.     When the shelf life had expired, the chemicals were transported to an open pit and burned under the veteran's supervision.

Unfortunately, there is no presumption of exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand.     However, in light of the statements provided by the veteran and D.S. concerning the use and storage of herbicides at the Air Force Base in Korat, Thailand, VA should attempt to obtain confirmation from appropriate sources."

- Claim


"VA should attempt to obtain confirmation from appropriate sources."

USAF CHECO Report (De-Classified in 1994)

Obviously, a travisty of justice; deceased claimant's survivors (for benefits.)

As you will find out from the above de-classified report, herbicides were used profusely in Thailand and not on an occasion in some silly test program, but regular use in the defense of the bases.

"The veteran contends that his Type II diabetes mellitus is the result of exposure to herbicides during service in Thailand while he was in the Air Force.     Service records confirm that the veteran was assigned to the 1982nd Communications Squadron at Ubon Airfield in Thailand from 1969 to 1972.

[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.

To ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions:   [deleted]"

- Claim


Note the (legal) language in the "remand" paragraph as to "duty to assist" and "developing the facts pertinent to the claim."     It's bullshit.     The VA, DOD; government had no intent to provide the official documents we have uncovered which would provide the claimant with a solid claim.

"In view of this, an attempt should be made to obtain any available reports as may reflect whether elements of the 35th TAC Group performed classified missions into Vietnam, including from Takhli Air Force Base in Thailand between December 1964 and September 1965."

- Denied/Remanded for the wrong reason as we know today, October, 2007, that herbicides were used (profusely) at installations in Thailand.

"[To] avoid burdens on the adjudication system, delays in the adjudication of other claims, and unnecessary expenditure of resources through remand or final adjudication of a claim based on court precedent that may ultimately be overturned on appeal, the Secretary of VA has imposed a stay at the Board on the adjudication of tinnitus claims affected by Smith."

- Unlawful Stay/Remand .. burden of the "adjudication system."     How about the veteran's right to due process and full government disclosure, hidden until July, 1994 of this archived historic, official USAF report?

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.     The veteran served in Thailand from July 1966 to June 1967;
he did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam.

[Service] personnel records show that he served in Thailand from July 1966 to June 1967. He served with Co C, 538th EngrBn (Const) from July 1966 to March 1967 and then served with Hq Co, 809th EngrBn (Const) until June 1967.     He had no service in the Republic of Vietnam.

[The] RO also noted that his personnel records showed that he served in Thailand, and there was no indication that he served in the Republic of Vietnam.

[He] claimed that the right of way was sprayed with an herbicide agent (Agent Orange) several times during his period of service, in order to kill the jungle and control the vegetation on the right of way.     He claimed they worked everyday in the jungle after it was sprayed, building the highway, and their compound was sprayed and fogged every day and night to control insects.     He reported that he was in good health when he arrived in Thailand in July 1966

In September 1997 the veteran submitted a statement, along with several documents.     In his statement he claimed that he was stationed 65 miles south of Kharat, Thailand for six to eight months and he helped to build a road.     He thought the road was named Highway 23.     He claimed that after six to eight months he was promoted and stationed further south, and was still building the road.     He reported that the vegetation on the right of way, when sprayed, would wilt and turn brown.

The veteran also submitted a letter dated in September 1997 from the U.S. Army & Joint Services Environmental Support Group (ESG) (now called the U.S. Armed Services Center for Research of Unit Records) to the RO, in response to the veteran's representative request concerning his possible exposure to herbicides in Thailand.     Along with the letter, ESG included documents showing that the Thailand Defoliation Test Program was conducted in Thailand from April 1963 through June 1966, to determine the effectiveness of aerial applications of herbicides, such as Purple and Orange, in the defoliation of jungle vegetation.     The test program was carried out in a series of aerial spray tests on carefully defined test plots at the Royal Thai Army reservation in Pranburi, Thailand.     The document also showed that Agent Orange was sprayed in Thailand in 1964 and 1965.     Also enclosed with the letter were copies of VA Agent Orange Briefs and the Agent Orange Review.

In July 1997 the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC) indicated that they were unable to confirm the veteran's use of Agent Orange during road construction.

By rating action in October 1997, the RO denied service connection for lung cancer as a result of exposure to herbicides, essentially finding that the required service in Vietnam had not been shown, nor was there evidence of exposure to herbicides in any other period of service.     The RO also noted that there was no basis in the available evidence of record to establish service connection for lung cancer, and noted that the lung cancer did not occur in service, nor was it aggravated or caused by service.

In February 1998 the veteran testified at a hearing at the RO that he arrived in Thailand in July 1966 and first went to a base camp in "Kharat" for three to four days.     He was then transferred approximately 65 to 70 miles south, into the mountains and jungles, where he was assigned to a unit as an equipment repairman.     His unit was building a road through the jungle and mountains, and he claimed that the 150 foot right of way for the road was sprayed with herbicides.     He claimed that during the eight or nine months he was with the unit, they built approximately 15 miles of the road, and herbicides were sprayed over two to three mile sections of the road.     He was part of the crew that actually cleared the right of way and did the initial grading.     He reported that he never saw the actual spraying, but did see helicopters go over with spray bars on. He testified that he worked in brown foliage areas.

[After] he spent approximately eight months building the road, he was transferred farther south to the 809th Engineer Battalion, Headquarters Company, and there was no exposure there.     The veteran submitted several maps to the hearing officer, and reported that the maps showed that the spraying noted at Pranburi was remote from where the veteran was, and that his likelihood of exposure was slim.     He did not know what type of helicopters were spraying the herbicides or where they came from.

In a statement dated in June 1998 the veteran indicated that he was including unit history reports for C Company, 538th Eng. Bn., and noted that these records showed that they had trouble clearing the jungle during building of the road because it was very dense. He claimed that due to the amount of vegetation, they sprayed "defoliates", one of which was Agent Orange. He claimed he was exposed to this by working in the jungle, brushing up against the foliage, and drinking the water.

[by] the 538th Engineer Battalion.     In the letter the USASCRUR stated that the >b?unit's mission included constructing base camps and Route 304.     The area of Route 304's terrain was noted to have rugged hills, mountains, dense under brush, jungle type vegetation, and rice paddies, and that the unit's area of operation included Korat and Kahin Buri, Thailand.     It was noted that the National Archives and Records Administration and the U.S. Army Military History Institute did not maintain unit records for the 134th Engr.Bn.     It was also noted that Morning Reports, which could be used to verify daily personnel actions, could be ordered from the Director of the NPRC.

[ANALYSIS]

A claimant for benefits under a law administered by the Secretary of the United States Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) shall have the >b?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 veteran contends that he has lung cancer as a result of his exposure to Agent Orange during his period of active service in Thailand.     He asserts that he was exposed to Agent Orange in Thailand because he helped build a road through the jungle, and that Agent Orange was sprayed to clear the right of way for the road.

[Thus,] since the veteran did not serve in Vietnam, the Agent Orange presumption does not apply to the instant case.

[In] that regard, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim that Agent Orange exposure in Thailand led to the development of his lung cancer.

[There] is no evidence in the record confirming or corroborating the veteran's claimed exposure to Agent Orange in Thailand.

[Absent] evidence affirmatively showing that he was exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Thailand, or a legal presumption in the veteran's favor, there is no basis to grant service connection for lung cancer as being incurred during service or otherwise due to exposure to Agent Orange in Thailand.     The Board has considered the doctrine of resolving doubt in the veteran's favor, but since the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim, that doctrine is not for application.   38 U.S.C.A.§ 5107."

- Denied Claim

Again, a situation where the government did not provide the pertinent reports that discussed the "vegetation and control of the jungle" and the issues clearly plausible by the veteran.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.   The veteran did not have service in Vietnam.

2.   The veteran was not exposed to an herbicide during service, including service in Thailand in 1971 and 1972.

3.   The veteran's diabetes mellitus was not manifested during his active service or for many years thereafter, nor is his diabetes otherwise related to service, to include claimed herbicide exposure during service.

[Under] certain circumstances, service connection for specific diseases, including type 2 diabetes, may be presumed if a veteran was exposed during service to certain herbicides, including Agent Orange. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(e). If a veteran was exposed to Agent Orange or another herbicide agent, service connection for type 2 diabetes will be presumed if the condition becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more.

[In] his March 2002 claim for service connection and compensation, he checked "No," in response to the question as to whether he had served in Vietnam.

VA has procedures for determining whether a veteran served in Vietnam, for purposes of presuming exposure to an herbicide.     A procedural manual provides, "In the absence of contradictory evidence, 'service in Vietnam' will be conceded if the records shows [sic] that the veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal."     VA Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1, Part III, 4.08(k)(1)-(2) (Nov. 1991).     Recently, in Haas v. Nicholson, No. 04-491 (U.S. Vet. App. August 16, 2006), the Court invalidated a February 2002 VA action to rescind that provision, and ruled that this manual provision remains binding on VA.    VA is seeking to have this decision appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.     Pending such action, the Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, by direction of the Secretary of VA, has imposed a stay on adjudication of cases affected by the Court's decision in Haas.     Chairman's Memorandum No. 01- 06-24 (September 21, 2006).

The veteran was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal.     There is evidence, however, that contradicts that he had service in Vietnam.     According to military records and the veteran's own statements, the veteran was stationed in Thailand during parts of 1971 and 1972, and he did not spend time on land or in the surrounding waters of the Republic of Vietnam.     The clear evidence that the veteran did not serve in Vietnam obviates a concession under Part III, 4.08(k)(1)-(2) of the M21-1 manual that he had service in Vietnam.     As application of the M21-1 manual provision does not lead to a concession that the veteran had service in Vietnam, the Haas decision does not affect this case, and this case is not subject to the Board's stay on cases affected by Haas.

As the veteran did not have service in Vietnam, he is not presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide during service.     The veteran contends that he was exposed to an herbicide during his service in Thailand.

[In] response to a May 2006 request from the RO, the United States Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) stated that research showed that herbicides were not sprayed near U.S. personnel in Thailand.     The JSRRC indicated that herbicides were only sprayed in Thailand for test purposes in the early and mid- 1960s, in remote jungle areas.

- Claim Denied


Again, another veteran without the proper documents to show what the government was hiding in the use of herbicides in Thailand.     I'd say the JSRRC needs to be informed about the situation, wouldn't you?

As noted above, the veteran also contends that he made two in-country visits to Vietnam.     He reports that during his time trailblazing in Laos, his superior indicated that they had crossed the border into Vietnam.     The veteran also reports that upon leaving Thailand, he was transported first by plane to Saigon, Vietnam, where he was for approximately two to three hours.     See hearing transcript.     In addition, the veteran contends that a plane sprayed an herbicide agent on a ship he was on that was located off the shore of Vietnam. See October 2002 VA Form 21-4138; February 2005 VA Form 9.

- Remanded/Denied claim, even with case precedent of intransit via Saigon is a well established route.

"Service department personnel records show that the veteran had service in the Strategic Air Command (SAC) of the United States Air Force.     It is reported that he had foreign service at the 4258th OMS, U-Tapao Air Field, Thailand.     Service personnel records do not contain the orders authorizing his travel from the United States to Thailand.     Obtaining the veteran's travel orders might serve to corroborate his assertion about having touched down in Viet Nam for several hours."

- Remanded/Denied on premise of stop(over) in Vietnam versus stationed at U-Tapao, Thailand where exposure to herbicides would have been the case.


Here is another ridiculous example of the "burden of proof" wall that the veteran was up against until now.

"[His] first allegation is that he was directly exposed to Agent Orange - that operations into Laos and/or Vietnam were conducted from NKP, that Agent Orange was sprayed at NKP, and/or that spraying in Laos along the Ho Chi Minh trail exposed him to Agent Orange.

[However,] the Department of Defense has issued a list of Agent Orange test programs outside of Vietnam that includes tests in Thailand from 1964-1965 and herbicide operations, to include Agent Orange, in Laos from December 1965 through June 1967.     Please see January 2003 letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to Dr. Susan Mather, with attached documents.         Particularly relevant here is the docu-mentation of spraying in Laos, but the records require further review to determine the actual cities of the herbicide operations and their geographic proximity to NKP.     These past herbicide operations are precisely the type of incidents that can be verified by historical records.   Under M21-1, Part VI, 7.20b(3):   [deleted]


"This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment."

- Remanded/Denied

The year was 2005, the claimant obviously waited several more years to have his "day in court,"
and because the (required) evidence is not yet de-classified, the V.A. is not accountable.

"In October 2001, USASCURR responded that it was unable to confirm or locate documentation indicating that Ranch Hand aircraft (used to spray herbicides over South Vietnam) originated from Ubon Air Force Base in Thailand. However, USASCURR further stated that the "Hayes Company" developed the spray equipment used in the Ranch Hand defoliation program. The issue of "possible contamination" of the Hayes Dispensers with which the veteran came into contact was not addressed.

In a June 2003 Supplemental Statement of the Case, the RO again declined to restore service connection on the basis that "the evidence does not establish that the veteran was exposed to Agent Orange while in service" and the "the preponderance of the evidence is against his claim, and there is no doubt to be resolved."

[While] the RO stated "it has not been verified that the veteran handled, used, stored, or was in any way exposed to Agent Orange, or that he came into contact with equipment that may have been exposed to Agent Orange, during his service in Thailand" that statement is not correct.

The RO essentially used a lack of information concerning herbicide exposure as the evidence to sever service connection. This had the effect of placing the burden of proof on the veteran, impermissible under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(d), and insufficient to justify a finding of clear and unmistakable error in the grant of service connection."

- Claim


This claim was granted based upon circumstantial evidence of spraying hardware on said aircraft, and not for the right reason (granted) exposure to herbicide in Thailand.

The "Ph.D Quadmire" -   Piled Higher and Deeper ..

    I could go on and on with case after case either denied or remanded for superficial documents that we know were classified and/or not made available by an agency that enjoyed denying veterans their just compensation for service in a hazardous war zone.     Write your congressman, point out these half dozen examples and see what they think.

Warning:   Although, you should not file your claim on your own, but with the assistance of a good VSO.     It is hard to find a good VSO.     Especially, faced with the fact that the regulations are written in such a way to prejudice a claim for service connection for those that served only in Thailand.     You are now equipped with the correct official documents to support and substantiate your claim as plausible.

  GO TO OFFICIAL USAF CHECO CLASSIFIED "SECRET" REPORT

  GO TO VBA PREFACE           GO TO VBA SITE MAP

Accessing your Congress Representatives Identified Representatives that support veterans' issues "Open Letters" thanking and appealing to same