re:   Thailand Veterans Class Action

After reading the July, 2006 article regarding the DOD List for exposure to agent orange/herbicides, on 11 Oct 07 I called the subcontractor responsible for updating the list; talked with a Lylie Suprise. I told him that a classified "Secret" USAF CHECO report, "Base Defense in Thailand" released an extract of a dozen pages to an associate, declassified 21 Sep 07 by the AFDO/Pentagon, specifics given at that time.

The DOD has held for 40 years that [the] only herbicide test were performed in Thailand during 1964-65 [and not near U.S. personnel] which is a blatant, horrific (lie) statement.     The air force has admitted to its use based on this report from 1968 to 1972. As a company clerk with the army engineers for two years, I can assure you that those dates [do] not encompass the entire period of use.     In fact, the "from" date should have been 1961. *

My question:   when is this injustice going to be corrected with first, an update of this official DOD List of locations outside of Vietnam, and all those claims previously denied either initial rating review or on appeal?

My correspondence with VARO/Reno is never answered.

I had to solicit the assistance of Senator John Ensign and the response per his support was never answered in correspondence 20 Dec 07. **

In fact, my letter of 4 Jul 07 regarding the stay on Haas and the "multi-issues" basis of my claim as to ignoring my Jan 68 army pay voucher for tax exempt "CZ" and "boots on the ground" claim (initially.)

Now, with the CHECO report EXPOSING the truth -- NOT IN JUDICIAL DISCOVERY AS A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE V.A. TO ASSIST CLAIMANTS, BUT FOIA (Freedom of Info Act.)     This is a disgrace.

There is no excuse for such conduct whatsoever.

The CHECO report is not only a creditable source of evidence, but maintained by the air force at the Pentagon by the AFDO and authored by two air force officers, the primary author was a law professor at the Air Force Academy at the time in 1973.     THIS REPORT REMAINS CLASSIFIED "SECRET" AND FOR GOOD REASON:   LIABILITY.

* Note (not in E-Form):   See Army Disgrace.

** Note:   the correspondence involving the assistance of Senator Ensign is yet to be published (and made available) online.

Notice:   words in [brackets] were either added or corrected from the original VA E-Form to clarify statements.

Give them a piece of your mind ...

Contact VA   (with a Question)

Other Related Links

USAF CHECO Report   "Base Defense in Thailand"   - Classified "SECRET"

DOD List Fax     Claim Denial   (Based on List)     VA AO Review Article

11 Oct 07 Phone Notification   The Confrontation   (with DOD contractor)

Key Veterans Appeal Court Rulings and Passages

This Order   April 13, 2007   Ribaudo v. Nicholson

    The Court granted Mr. Ribaudo's petition for extraordinary relief in an opinion issued on January 9, 2007.     Ribaudo v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 552 (2007) (en banc), appeal filed (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2007) [hereinafter Ribaudo].     Therein, the Court (1) held unlawful and ordered rescinded the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) Chairman's Memorandum 01-06-24; and (2) ordered that "[t]he Secretary will proceed to process the appeals that were stayed in accordance with that unlawful memorandum 'in regular order according to [their] place on the docket'" and will apply this Court's decision in Haas v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 257 (2006), appeal docketed, No. 07 7037 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2006) to those appeals. Ribaudo, 20 Vet.App. at 561 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(1)).     The Court also outlined a procedure by which the Secretary could file a motion to stay the precedential effect of Haas.   Id. at 560-61.

Emphasis of ..

(a)   .. "[and] will apply this Court's decision in Haas"

(b)   "[t]he Secretary will proceed to process the appeals that were stayed"

Editorial:   that means that the Order of 4/13/07 does give the Secretary an injunction on the adjudication of new claims, but the estimated 1,500 claims already in the appeals process (like my own) must move forward on the docket and have the Haas decision applied!

    On January 26, 2007, the Court issued an order, staying until further order of the Court, adjudication before the Board and VA regional offices cases that are potentially affected by Haas.

[the] Secretary rescinded Board's stay order and directed Board to resume adjudication of stayed claims); Waterhouse v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 473, 475 (1992) (holding that parties before Court must "personally have suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putative illegal conduct"

    This important exception to the broad stay sought by the Secretary addresses the concerns raised by Mr. Ribaudo regarding the detrimental impact that a stay would have on individual claimants with compelling circumstances.     The stay granted by the Court is narrowly tailored so as not to harm that special class of claimants.

    [How] is it known that these veterans could not be entitled to service connection based upon other theories?     There is simply no way to know the answers to all of these questions until such claims are adjudicated.

- Judge in Ribaudo Order 4/13/07

    In defense of an unlawful stay of the court ruling in Haas, Secretary Nicholson pleaded that this new law * would cause harm to the agency to the tune of some 832,000 Vietnam Era claimants.     See Irreparable Harm.

Editorial:     with one major agency action, Secretary Nicholson has taken it upon himself to violate the rights of thousands of potential claimants.     This is not about causing harm to the agency.     It is about money. ¹     Like his predecessors in this cabinet position, historically, the agency position is to deny disability compensation to those that served our country and deservingly so.     In this instance, the Secretary/the Chairman issued an unlawful stay to all regional offices that, in so many words, deny adjudication of Haas-affected claims.     I am the recipient of such an agency notice that ignores my rights to appeal under the existing regulations.

    See under investigation   re:   Haas appeal;   "Soldiers of Justice" and actions to date.

¹   "I agree with the majority's conclusion that the risk of irreparable harm to the Secretary (or absence thereof) weighs against granting the Secretary's motion for a stay. In short, I do not believe that the Secretary's expenditure of resources constitutes irreparable harm. VA's resources are limited only by congressional appropriations."

- SCHOELEN, Judge   (Ribaudo's Court Order April 13, 2007)

Other Court-related Documents