SLIDELL, LA – The Department of Veterans Affairs recently issued a revision to its manual defining what areas can be considered for the presumption of Agent Orange exposure. This revision specifically excludes the crews of ships that entered the major bays and harbors of Vietnam, including Navy personnel who were exposed to Agent Orange in Da Nang, Nha Trang, Vung Tau and Cam Ranh Bay.
The provision was issued in response to a court order from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decision entitled Gray v. McDonald, which found the old regulation to be improper and ordering the VA to re-write it. Slidell, LA-based Military Veterans Advocacy Executive Director Commander John B. Wells, USN (Retired), described the new regulation as a "betrayal."
"It does not change their old rule," Wells said. "It merely restates it with language that is just as irrational."
The new regulation comes on the heels of a meeting between Wells and VA Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson, which occurred last month. The meeting was arranged as a result of Congressional pressure to open a dialogue on Gray and the entire Blue Water Navy issue. During that meeting, Wells showed evidence of the Agent Orange infiltration into the bays, harbors and territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam. The meeting also included the discussion of a report confirming the presence of the Agent Orange dioxin in the bottom sediment of Nha Trang Harbor. Several scientific studies have shown that the process used to distill potable water from salt water, for crew use, did not remove the dioxin, and actually enriched it.
"These folks got a straight shot into their drinking water," Wells said. "Studies conducted for the Australian Department of Veterans Affairs and confirmed by the United States' Institute of Medicine have proven that. Yet the bureaucrats at the VA refuse to accept the fact that they were wrong."
Australia has granted the presumption of exposure to their shipboard veterans since 2003.
"Sloan Gibson promised me that the VA would keep in contact with us and consult with us," Wells continued. "That never happened."
Wells noted that a similar promise of contribution made in January of 2012 by then VA Chief of Staff John Gingrich never materialized either.
"We tried to give the VA the benefit of the doubt but, as usual, they disappointed us."
In an e-mail to Gibson, Wells wrote: "While I had hoped that our meeting would result in a partnership, the fact that it did not was not completely unexpected. Like most veterans, I am used to being disappointed by the VA. Working with you, I believe we could have resolved this matter. Instead, we now have to pursue other avenues. But our mission is to work for the veterans and we will continue to do that."
Wells, who served as a Chief Engineer on several Navy ships, is a retired surface warfare officer. He is now an attorney practicing military and veterans law. He is recognized nationally as the subject matter expert on the Blue Water Navy matter. In contrast, Wells noted that at the meeting with Gibson the Deputy Secretary conceded that the people he had working the issue had no surface ship experience.
"The lack of nautical experience is evident in the new regulation and as well as previous VA statements on the matter," Wells said.
Wells promised continued pressure in Congress and the courts. HR 969, which would expand the presumption of exposure to the territorial seas, is pending in the House Veterans Affairs Committee with 264 co-sponsors. The Companion Senate bill, S 681, has 20 co-sponsors. The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has held one hearing on May 13, and is expected to hold another when Congress reconvenes. Currently litigation is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
