Legal Disclaimer Notice:   Lawyers dispense legal advice; veteran advocates provide advice only.   It is up to you do decide whether you agree with and/or act on these suggestions.     Advocates, unless otherwise explicitly stated, are not attorneys of law and not licensed to practice law under any conditions.     If you need an attorney, please check your telephone book yellow pages.

re:   Exercise in futility, ie, Morning Reports, Rosters, etc.     Background

    Tracing morning reports and other unit reports that reflect your assignment and movement of the unit for a plausible situation of "setting foot in Vietnam."     In my case, I was initially assigned to the 44th Engineer Group and later transferred to the 697th Engineer Co, Pipeline.     This exercise seems to indicate that it was a "common practice" (from Oakland Army Base, California) either by ship or air via TAFB (Travis AFB, California) to move through Ton Son Knut (Saigon, Vietnam) before final destinations, eg, Korat, Thailand.

    This practice was common because Thailand was a R & R destination during the war where the soldiers assigned in Vietnam would take an in-country flight to Ton Son Knut to board a MAC flight for Bangkok and billeting arrangements with the Prince Hotel in Bangkok where I was almost reassigned.

re:   PCS Orders (Permanent Change of Station)

    Here is a typical set of orders reassigning several soldiers from Oakland Army Base, California via Travis AFB (TAFB.)
APO SF 96233 is Korat, Thailand (destination) -- click on heading for complete order.

re:   Morning Reports corroborating PCS Orders to HHC, 44th Engr Gp; 697th Engr Co (P/L)

Action/Status

(a)   Assigned/Not Joined = Asg/Not jd; intrns from 502d Admin Co; orders from 2d Armor Div, Ft Hood, TX   (10 Jan 68)
Click on excerpt for full report; signature authorizing report.

(b)   Arrive/Present = Arr/Pres - HHC, 44th Engr Gp   (23 Jan 68) .. two weeks later
Click on excerpt for full report; signature authorizing report.

(c)   Asg/Pres - Reassigned to 697th Engr Co (P/L) from HHC, 44th Engr Gp   (23 Apr 68) .. three months later
Click on excerpt for full report; signature authorizing report.

(d)   Pending departure; Camp Friendship to HHC, 538th Engr Bn   (1 Oct 68) .. five months later   .. never happened
Click on excerpt for full report; signature authorizing report.     Note:   reassigned in 1969 prior to deactivation of 697th

(e)   Halloween - promoted to SP/5 E5; PMOS 71H20   (31 Oct 68) .. six months later   Grade Change/Appointment
Click on excerpt for full report; signature authorizing report.

re:   Unit Movement Record (via Vietnam) - 697th Engr Co (P/L)

Click on excerpt for full movement sheet data

Note:   Vietnam, second to last entry; (T) 26 Aug 65 - 28 Aug 65

re:   Confirming notes - WW II to 1957; 1965 Movement from Ft Wolters, TX to Thailand

Click on excerpt for full movement sheet data;   zoom in

Itinerary:   Oakland AB, Vung Tau/Tan Son Khut, Vietnam to Korat, Thailand   (29 Aug 65)

Legal Disclaimer:   the above (futile) exercise was presented only to illustrate that it was plausible that soldiers assigned to Thailand, while intransit, could have stepped foot in Vietnam.     It is no way conclusive except for the first unit group of personnel, ie, 4 officers and 139 enlisted men (with PCS orders listing their names.)     Now, it is not your responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt such facts, but to introduce a plausible situation.

re:   VBA Court Rulings citing other intransit cases

re:   Citation Nr: 0515988   Decision Date: 06/14/05

"Service personnel records reflect that the veteran did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam. It is noted that, in February 1967, the veteran was transferred to Thailand, where he served until December 1967. The veteran has maintained that he stopped in Vietnam to change planes while en route to Thailand. He reported that he was in Vietnam for roughly four hours."

"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."

"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."

See IV.   Analysis

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.

See Legal Precedence.

-- Citing No. 0432676       (Granted on "word" alone)

FINDINGS OF FACT

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.

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 ..

    -- Citing No. 0414623   (Granted on "word" alone)     At the outset, it should be noted that 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).

This law eliminates the concept of a well-grounded claim, redefines the obligations of VA with respect to the duty to assist, and supersedes the decision of the CAVC in Morton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 477 (1999), withdrawn sub nom. Morton v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 174 (2000) (per curiam order), which had held that VA cannot assist in the development of a claim that is not well grounded.     See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103A

FINDINGS OF FACT

3. The veteran has testified under oath on two occasions and has submitted a sworn statement to the effect that he stopped of in Tan Son Nhut Air Base in Saigon for approximately two hours on his way to his duty assignment in Takhli, Thailand.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Lung cancer may be presumed to have been incurred in active service as secondary to AO exposure. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1116, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303 3.307, 3.309(a), (e) (2003).

This veteran was given the "benefit of the doubt" in accordance with § 5107.     Why is that?     No -- seriously.     Why .. is .. that ???     Is his "story", unsubstantiated, any more plausible than a draftee that served only two years in the military service?     Or, is there a bias for veterans that retired and/or have military service in excess of (say) 15 years ???

Service Connection

This is the "legal precedence" version, for complete, un-edited decision, click here.

Following the point at which it is determined that all relevant evidence has been obtained, it is the Board's principal responsibility to assess the credibility, and therefore the probative value of proffered evidence of record in its whole. (citations omitted)

In determining whether documents submitted by a veteran are credible, the Board may consider internal consistency, facial plausibility, and consistency with other evidence submitted on behalf of the claimant. (holding that while interest in the outcome of a proceeding "may affect the credibility of testimony it does not affect the competency to testify." (citations omitted).

The Board reiterates the basic three requirements for prevailing on a claim for service connection. To establish entitlement to service connection, there must be (1) competent evidence of a current disability (a medical diagnosis); (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service (lay or medical evidence); and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability (medical evidence) (citations omitted).

In the case at hand the veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for lung cancer. Initially he satisfies the first requirement for prevailing on a claim for service connection; that is, he has the disability at issue.

Applying the various pertinent criteria relevant to his claim, the Board notes that such disorder was not shown in service or for many years thereafter. Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to predicate a grant of service connection on a presumptive basis with application of the general service connection criteria as lung cancer was not shown to be disabling to a compensable degree during the first post service year.

There are other criteria applicable to the veteran's case at hand. The veteran has claimed entitlement to service connection for his lung cancer on the basis of his exposure to AO while in Vietnam, although briefly, enroute to his permanent duty station in Thailand. Such exposure is claimed to have taken place in January 1966. There is service personnel documentation of the veteran's assignment to Takhli Royal Air Base for a tour of duty commencing in January 1966.

Unfortunately, there is no service personnel documentation of the veteran's ever having made a visitation in Vietnam. The pertinent governing criteria do require that there be verification of visitation to Vietnam which is the nature of the veteran's location there briefly enroute to his permanent duty station in Thailand. The Board notes that it was not uncommon for American servicemen stationed in Thailand and other neighboring countries during the Vietnam war to have been transported to and from Vietnam for various reasons including temporary duty, brief missions, or just for rest stops which included picking up and dropping off servicemen whose duties were to varying degrees related to the conflict.

It was also not uncommon that such trips, especially those which were brief, as described by the veteran, were not documented. In fact, it was not uncommon that such temporary stays in Vietnam were last minute decisions due to the exigencies of wartime and the need to use available resources to complete a variety of missions. The RO has already conceded the credibility of the veteran. The Board has no reason not to do the same. As the Board noted earlier in this discussion, it is the Board's principal responsibility to assess the credibility, and therefore the probative value of proffered evidence of record in its whole.

In this regard, the Board finds that the veteran has been consistent in his recounting of the circumstances of his temporary landing for a brief period of time enroute to his permanent duty station in Thailand. The record clearly shows that he has been cooperative and expeditious in seeking out sources of collateral evidence to support his claim. * The Board finds no reason not to accept the veteran's claim of having been in Vietnam for the brief period and under the circumstances he has testified to under oath, and incorporated into his written statements of record including one of which is sworn and notarized. For the purpose of the present determination, the Board accepts as totally credible the veteran's account of the facts and circumstances surrounding his visitation to Vietnam in January 1966 enroute to his permanent duty station in Thailand.

Having overcome the first hurdle in analyzing the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for lung cancer, the Board must now determine, in view of the veteran's rather significant smoking history, whether his lung cancer can be attributed to his brief two hour stay in Vietnam. In this regard, as the Board noted earlier, the Veteran cooperated in the development of his claim by obtaining competent medical evidence referable to the likely etiology of his lung cancer.

    -- Citing No. 0434051   (Granted on pay stub)

"In addition, NPRC should be asked to provide the veteran’s military pay records, including any documents relevant to combat zone pay/exemption status."

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.

For more on Serving in Thailand Appeal Cases.