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 afidavits written and sworn to by other similar veterans.

    We solicit the afidavits 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 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.

  Afidavit   Kurt Priessman       Statement by Wayne Boyd

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

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"

If you are denied your right to hearing and appeal, then you should move forward with the class-action lawsuit for "boots on the ground" with NVLSP in Washington, DC.



"Boots on the Ground" Claimants

We are preparing to take action on cases the VA has stayed, despite evidence the veteran actually set foot in Vietnam. I was wondering if you could post the following on the Blue Water Navy site:

The National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) is investigating whether to challenge the Department of Veterans Affairs' stay on cases in which the claimant has alleged that the veteran actually set foot on the landmass of Vietnam.     For complete details of the criteria.



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.