The purpose of this section is provide Thailand veterans that wish to file a claim for disability compensation from the V.A. under the provision of "visitation to Vietnam" and the presumptive application of exposure to herbicides with formal Affidavits written and sworn to by other similar veterans.

    We solicit the Affidavits of other Thailand veterans so as to provide the Thailand claimant with adequate statements in support of their claim at the initial rating level of adjudication and the Board of Veterans' Appeal (BVA) Court.

    Please provide a sworn statement and/or notary certified copy for our publishing.     You do not have to obtain a notarized copy like the illustration below.     Simply add a statement such as:   "This statement is provided under the penalties of perjury and sworn to be accurate to the best of my knowledge."

    You may submit your statement in a text file, PDF file, Word document and if you are not sure which is compatible, please call Frank at (702) 363-3290 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

    Do not include your social security number or any other personal identification information that could be used in identity theft.     Your mailing address along with a day-time phone number is more than adequate.     Thank you for your support.

 
Credit for getting the USAF CHECO Report via FOIA
MSgt Kurt Priessman, USAF (Retired)  
Affidavit   Kurt Priessman       Statement by Wayne Boyd

Mac Flight Manifests and Contracted Airlines, eg, PanAm, World Airways, TWA, Continental


In Kurt's research regarding Mac flights and the key document of flight manifest, evidently, the contracted airlines retained this critical information only for six years and then they were destroyed.     Therefore, it is important to cite judge rulings related to the "common practice of stopovers in Vietnam" while intransit to Thailand, for instance.

Common Pacific Routes:   Travis AFB
(California,) McChord AFB (Pacific Northwest,) and Hickam AFB (Hawaii)
- CONUS Embark Points for Guam, Phillipines, Vietnam and Thailand.
Kaneda AB, Okinawa (Japan) flights were infrequently scheduled.
Korea PCS primarily through McChord AFB; Army personnel thru Ft Lewis Depot

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

[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.

"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."


____________________________________________
JEFF MARTIN
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

re:   Citation Nr: 0432676   Decision Date: 12/15/04

He said that the doors of his plane were open while it was in Vietnam.

[The] veteran has provided statements that on his flight from California to Thailand in March 1966, his plane landed in Vietnam and the doors of the plane were opened.     Although the original travel documents submitted by the veteran do not reflect that his plane landed in Vietnam while en route to Thailand, one of the normal flight paths to Thailand from California included stops in the Philippine Islands and Vietnam.     The Board finds the veteran's statements both competent and credible.     Hence, the Board finds that the evidence is in equipoise on the question of whether the veteran had "service in Vietnam" as defined by regulation, and he is therefore entitled to the presumption that he was exposed to herbicide agents during service in 1966.

As the veteran did have "service in Vietnam", the Agent Orange presumption of service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus applies to this case.     Hence, with consideration of the benefit-of-the doubt rule (38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b)), the Board finds that service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus is warranted on a presumptive basis.   38 U.S.C.A. § 1116 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e) (2003).

____________________________________________
ROBERT P. REGAN
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

For more background information on "Serving in Thailand," click here.
 

    Flying Space-A had its perks in Bangkok, Space-A Lounge; phones to call home, and comfortable chairs to relax in.

Departure Point:   Check-in Counter.

Franco's favorite assignment:   Prince Hotel Army Enlisted Intransit Facility, First Day *

* 40 years ago, the tallest building on Sukumvit on the skyline; note modern skyscraper behind the hotel.     The "Prince" may have looked like a "box," but it was beautiful, then (and now.)     In Korat, Sri Patana Hotel;   Franco.

re:   U-Tapao RTNAB and Pattaya Beach Resort R&R Hqs

"The Vietnam War saw the start of Pattaya's international reputation, for the fledgling resort was used as an official R&R center for U.S. forces," reads The Pattaya Guide, a guidebook for the modern town.     "They were flown into Utapao Airport which was built for American use at the time."

During 1969, my pipeline engineer outfit was putting the final "tourhces" on Camp Samae San in Satahip.     My Thai wife and I would drive up to Bangkok on weekends and once and a while stop at the Prince Hotel where we would always see army buses loaded with fatigue-clad Vietnam troops either coming (very happy faces) or going (depressed looks.)

"UTAPAO, Thailand - The route in from the gate to the Royal Thai Navy Air Base at Utapao winds past shabby three-story concrete barracks that once housed U.S. troops preparing for missions over Vietnam. The 11,500-foot runway, now used by planes carrying life-saving supplies to tsunami-battered nations, once held aircraft such as B-52 Stratofortresses, KC-135 Stratotankers and even several C-130 Herculeses now posted to Yokota Air Base, Japan. The U.S. military's relationship with the base and its Thai hosts dates back four decades, to when it was a strategic forward-operating base and one-time home to thousands of U.S. troops during the Vietnam War." Article from GlobalSecurity.org

MAC Commanders:   Major Copner, Route Briefing Officer
LTC Ewing C-5 Aircraft Commander
75th Military Airlift Squadron
See also Airlift Routing and Mac-Flight-Data

Flight Route Maps from CONUS (Travis AFB, California):
Commercial Flight Route   (707, DC-8/10 w/4,000 mile range) *
Southern Jet Stream Route   (KC-135R and C-141A for Autumn & Winter)
The Jet Stream Route   (C-5A via Hickam AFB, Hawaii or Elmendorf AFB, Alaska)
Northern Jet Stream   (Alternative to The Jet Stream Route via Elmendorf then Hickam)
Northern Route   (Alternative to The Jet Stream Route via Elmendorf; non-stop Japan**)
Great Circle Route   (Non-stop approx 14 hours to U-Tapao AFB, Thailand) ***
* There are several commercial exceptions out of SFO and individual ticketing
** Yokota AFB, Japan       *** Exception to Ton San Knut Intl, Saigon, Vietnam Stop
Note:   McChord AFB, Washington Route is the Northern Route or Northern Jet Stream
Post 1973 Era:   Chart #1     Chart #2     re:   Military Cargo Aircraft   (Maxwell AFB)
 

My Year in Saigon with AFVN by Captain James Wentz, USN [Retired]     My commercial flight from Dane County airport at Madison terminated in San Francisco where I took a bus to Travis Air Force Base.     I was assigned a seat on a charter airliner * bound for Saigon with stops at Hickam AFB in Hawaii and Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines.     Some of the passengers who joined the flight at Hickam were returning to the war zone from a Rest and Recreation (R&R) period in Hawaii.     They carted M-16 rifles as part of their carry-on luggage.     It brought home to me the deadly seriousness of what lay ahead for me. * Editorial:     The Military Airlift Command (MAC) in the U.S. Air Force operates "air force aircraft" and not "commerical airliners."     The distinction is important because the air force is not in the "civilian passenger" business and when there is a need, the air force hires an airline carrier or carriers.   &nbps; Makes sense, and why you would see a Pan Am or a TWA draped commerical airliner. Subliminal Point .. see if you caught it. The (good) Captain, a Navy officer, knew where he was heading, but did he realize (or assume) that the chartered aircraft may be continuing on to Bangkok after stops at Clark and TSN?     No.     Why should he?     Did he go up to the cockpit and chat with the pilot?     Not too often. As far as the (good) Lietenant Commander was concerned, this charter was "dead-heading" at TSN; he was getting off, joining the war and his only real observation was the Vietnam troops returning from R&R in Hawaii carrying their "hardware." Now, the second important point is that he is an officer, and a retired one at that .. meaning beaucoup years of miitary service and experience traveling for our country.     Would he be expected to know everything about his transport?    Hardly.     Then ask yourself:   "Why does the VA ask of us so many stupid questions as to date(s), location(s) and logistics??? You have now been indoctrinated and ready to continue with the next section about "Doing Discovery for the government..."   - Franco, SP/6 Systems Analyst/Software Engineer Part II - R&R Travel (as known to the Lieutenant Commander) Each person serving in Vietnam was offering one week of Rest and Recreation (R&R) leave to some idyllic location in the Far East--Hong Kong (which Greg selected), Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, Tokyo, Bangkok in Thailand, and Sydney in Australia.     I choose Australia and arrived there in early 1969.     My civilian charter flight left Saigon and made a fuel stop in Darwin before arriving in Sydney, a lovely city on one of the most beautiful harbors in the world.     I moved into a low-cost temperance hotel, [etc.] Editorial:     The Commander was quite observant (for an officer) and realized that the aircraft that was used was not vintage-air force, but a commerical airliner and point ofembarkation?     Saigon     If I was to make an "educated-guess," I would say that most international travel out of Vietnam originated in TSN.Saugon and all other in-country airports/air bases were only utilized by military aircraft, eg, DaNang to NKP or Korat or U-Tapao, for instance.

 

Narrative by Airman David Emery, serving in Korat, Thailand       [Click on above quote for link to PDF]

Doing Discovery for the government ..

    The following veteran's appeal was remanded because the government didn't know its ass from its elbow, ie, Mac flight routes from CONUS to SEA:   Claim   (3/7/07)

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

Quote:   Vets Home   "Agent Orange Use Outside of Vietnam"


    The government, with all the records (or, lack thereof) is given responsibility to assist a claimant in substantiating their claim.     With the latest scandal, we know that the government covered up the use of herbicides in Thailand and if that wasn't bad enough, emphatically claimed that it was never used their (except for test spraying, ie, DOD List.)

    In other words, like the termination of a well-grounded claim (steep in evidence,) and the administration ignoring the "benefit of the doubt" doctrine set forth in the new VCAA/2000 law for properly aiding a claimant to not only substantiate their claim (of 40 years ago,) but properly notify them for incomplete filings.

Phillipine Veteran Intransit Ruling

re:   Citation Nr: 0432676   Decision Date: 12/15/04

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."

Analysis

The veteran has provided statements that on his flight from California to Thailand in March 1966, his plane landed in Vietnam and the doors of the plane were opened. Although the original travel documents submitted by the veteran do not reflect that his plane landed in Vietnam while en route to Thailand, one of the normal flight paths to Thailand from California included stops in the Philippine Islands and Vietnam. The Board finds the veteran's statements both competent and credible. Hence, the Board finds that the evidence is in equipoise on the question of whether the veteran had "service in Vietnam" as defined by regulation, and he is therefore entitled to the presumption that he was exposed to herbicide agents during service in 1966. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii), 3.313(a) (2003).

38 USC § 5107   Benefit of the Doubt Doctrine

38 USC § 501

Rules and Regulations - (a) The Secretary has authority to prescribe all rules and regulations which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the laws administered by the Department and are consistent with those [laws,]

CFR 38 Part 3.302

Reasonable doubt.   (Promulgation of the Law, 5107)

It is the defined and consistently applied policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent, however, with the facts shown in every case.

(The rest of the regulation takes "liberty" never intended in the law.)

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)

Notice that the agency does not properly point back to the provisions of 5107, but cites the authority for publishing rules and regulations, 501.     Note:   I added the proper references.     These are absent in the actual regulation.

re:   Haas v. Nicholson

Some look at this landmark ruling as a major break-thru for a class of S.E.A. veterans that were awarded the VSM (Vietnam Service Medal,) but I feel the panel of judges took specific exception to the rules and regulations the Secretary published/promulgated which under 501 provides authority.

re:   Ribaudo v. Nicholson

The agency or Secretary unlawfully created an injunction on all Haas-related claims until the agency appeal in District Court (or before the U.S. Supreme Court) when the Haas ruling was made on 16 Aug 06.     After several legal actions, an army of lawyers supporting the agency, a motion was filed in the proper appeal court on 16 Jan 07 seekings a blanket injunction.     The ruling was made on 13 Apr 07 (in Ribaudo versus properly in Haas) where an injunction was granted for claims not yet initial adjudicated.     Claims like mine were supposed to be allowed their appeal, and so forth, but as you can see, my claim is still in limbo and therefore, as found in the Ribaudo judge's opinion, a contempt of court citation should really be made on the Secretary and agency for such unlawful acts of restricting due process.

Haas/Ribaudo Rulings Background       Document Summary

V.A. adjudicates your disability claim, denies you, and list your evidence erroneously.

You have retained the services of an AMVETS VSO/DSO, retired Navy, 15 years claim experience, meets with the V.A. DRO for an administrative review, the erroneous facts of evidence submitted is stated, and denied.

Conclusion:   "Fox is guarding the hen house" and potential conflict of interest w/VSO.

Submitted Document in Support of Claim:
  DA Form 1239   (Army)

Key document references:
  EM CZ JAN 68   (Remarks)
  Tax Exempt   (For CZ) **

CZ = Combat Zone (Only Vietnam was authorized tax-free incentive.)

** VSO Conflict of Interest:   several off-color comments, eg, CZ was authorized for Thailand, were you paid in script or cash? .. may be he would like to know if the $25 was paid with 5 $5s or 2 $10s and a $5, or even better, a $20 and a $5 (this does not also consider that any combination of $1 bills.)     Now, if this line of frivolous questions continued, may be he would want me to recall if I bought a six-pack of beer, went to the movies, or went to the club to get drunk.

re:   Buddy Statement

Who was with me?     Did I buy him a beer/bourbon/soda?   How many times?

Now, I hope you all see why this "Buddy Statement" crap is bull shit, low grade at that.     Something that happened 40 years ago, even 10 years ago, 5, or last year, such frivolous events are the hallmark of an empty mind, ie, nothing excited ever happened in his life beyond a stopover in Vietnam.     I suggest you prepare yourself for such ridiculous lines of questioning.

VA Form 21-4138   (Statement in Support of Claim)
Tax Exempt Status was "CZ" for Vietnam

Notice:   "door open" by VSO/not considered, CAS PAY

In my ten years on active duty, I never recalled being paid a casual pay (advance) in flight, ie, stewardess running up'n down the isle handing out money.

What the fox (V.A.) did to cover-up/ignore important statements in claimant's submitted official army pay voucher document for period of service applicable to presumptive law:   no reference to "CZ" either in remarks or deduction (taxes) - casual pay reference is optional or understood (in standard on-the-ground procedures.)


Evidence - Reason for Decision   (SOC - Statement of Case)

Summary:   Both the VA 21-4138 and DA 2139 were noted in evidence submitted "sanitized."     That is, no references to the real purpose of why they were submitted, eg, "CZ" status.

Pay Stub Legal Precedence (Boyd v. Nicholson)

Early ;ast uear. 2007. 1SG Wayne Boyd, US Army (Retired) at Carlisle Barracks in a civilian capacity approached me for assistance.     He indicated that he had 5 applicable pay vouchers, all annotated with "CZ" tax exempt status; BVA//DC granted service-connection based upon evidence presented.

Rulings,
Precedence,
and Quotes
to cite ..

    The VA has promulgated revised regulations to implement these changes in the law. See 38 C.F.R §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2004). The intended effect of the new regulations is to establish clear guidelines consistent with the intent of Congress regarding the timing and the scope of assistance VA will provide to a claimant who files a substantially complete application for VA benefits, or who attempts to reopen a previously denied claim.   ¹

    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). The Act is applicable to all claims filed on or after the date of enactment, November 9, 2000, or filed before the date of enactment and not yet final as of that date. The new law eliminates the concept of a well-grounded claim, and redefines the obligations of the VA with respect to the duty to assist claimants in the development of their claims. First, the VA has a duty to notify the claimant and representative, if represented, of any information and evidence needed to substantiate and complete a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102 and 5103 (West 2002). Second, the VA has a duty to assist the claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2002).   ²

    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.   ³

    The veteran submitted a March 2003 statement from a retired Air Force Colonel. The Colonel indicated that, while he was on route to Thailand, in January 1967, he flew a commercial airline to Saigon and then went on to Bangkok. The veteran has stated that he was unable to obtain any documentation regarding his route to Thailand in February 1967. He has provided considerable detail about his flight and has also stated that he has "not been able to locate any archives that would have [his] travel orders in them, and [he had] been told that the manifests of the contract air carriers no longer exist."   ⁴

    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.   ⁵

Footnotes 1 thru 5
On appeal from RO/WACO - BVA Ruling
by Jeff Martin, Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Citation Nr: 0515988   Decision Date: 06/14/05   DOCKET NO. 03-06 503)
 
"Trilogy of hypocrisy"         For full story.

    Thailand, Guam and Okinawa are three places where the government denies liability for using herbicides.     In my capacity with the army engineers in Thailand for two years from January 17, 1968 to January 10, 1970, it is my duty to present an alternative position or theory which a reasonable mind (judges of the BVA) may consider.     Keep in mind, though, it should also be presented by Thailand veterans secondary to the (insisted) agency regulations of "visitation to Vietnam," ie, often referred to as "boots on the ground."
 
Claim Supporting Documents

Support Statement - Attached Statement Formal Statement of Recollections Army Pay Voucher CZ	Support Statement - Attached Statement Addtl Formal Statement of Recollections DD214
Army Pay Voucher CZ Jan 68 CZ Taxable Income & Tax Exempt Remarks EM ARR THAILAND 17 JAN 68 EM CZ JAN 68 FDP EFF 17 JAN 68 Legend: CZ = Combat Zone (Vietnam) EM = Enlisted Member ARR = Arrived FDP = Final Destination Point EFF = Effective	DD214 w/Award of VSM See VSM * Update (15 Sep 06) and Haas v. Nicholson (16 Aug 06)
Secondary Condtion Support Statement	Physician Medical Opinion Progress Note Claimant     Zoom in Body
Consent Form for private hospital treatment outside V.A. Healthcare	2142 Consent Form (Backside) All medical records and treatments at V.A. Healthcare Facilities do not require consent form.

DFAS Info       See Pay Stub Debacle, Pay Stub Citings, Claim Supporting Documents;   DA 1239   (Army)     "The veteran stated that on that trip in March 1966, his plane landed in Vietnam prior to arriving in Thailand.     He said that when he filed his travel voucher for that trip, he was told not to indicate that he landed in Vietnam.     He believed because of problems regarding combat pay."     re:   Citation Nr: 0432164 Another Veteran       (Note that Franco was an E-6 Finance Clerk w/Hawaii Army Natl Guard)     I will leave the vet's name annonymous because his pay records had an error.     The veteran stated that his plane landed in Vietnam, received "CZ" for tax exemption that pay period, but the finance clerk that prepared his pay voucher statement made a simple error stating, to the affect, that he "flew over" Vietnam versus landed there.     This is a simple discrepancy that you should dispute because you and you alone know what happened to you on your transient trip. FAX DFAS for your LES/army pay vouchers with "CZ" ...     The DFAS will do a search to find your pay vouchers that is a form of evidence, actually "well-grounded" basis versus "benefit of the doubt" doctrine, and you should submit any such pay voucher along with your claim in support of and to substantiate a basis of "set foot in Vietnam" provision (which at the publishing is obsolete by the landmark ruling on 16 Aug 06, Haas v. Nicholson.)     INCLUDE IN YOUR FAX 1.     Supply your NAME, SSAN and the period of time that you are looking for. 2.     Mailing address     (any c/o name, etc.) 3.     Telephone number(s)     (Day, work, residence, best time to call) DFAS FAX PHONE NO. is   (317)   519 - 1120 Defense Finance and Accounting Service DFAS-DE/ PMJOA 6760 E Irvington PL. Denver CO 80279-3000 Source Credit:   Wayne T. Boyd, US Army (Retired, 1SG)

Vietnam Era Class-Action Rulings
Pending Appeal by V.A.

    The V.A. has stone-walled the decision of Haas v. Nicholson for one year to date in which the promulgation of and ambiguity of the agency regulations became obvious and an old policy of concession of presumptive exposure to herbicides based upon having been awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) during the applicable period meant automatic award of service connection.

Haas v. Nicholson   (16 Aug 06)       AP Press Release;   cc Rep Shelley Berkley, D-NV

To wit Ribaudo Order of 4/13/07:

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"



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.