This document provides information about herbicide exposure claims related to service in Southeast Asia other than Vietnam. It discusses herbicide use in Thailand, the requirements for establishing exposure and service connection, and strategies for gathering evidence to prove exposure occurred near military base perimeters in Thailand. Specifically, it addresses using photographs, maps, buddy statements, and the veteran's own recollections and duties to demonstrate they were likely exposed to herbicides by serving near defoliated areas on base.

1. Matthew Hill and Gregg Maxon,
Attorneys at Law

2. Southeast Asia Other Than Vietnam
 February 28, 1961 – May 7, 1975 (note
the beginning date is different than the
Vietnam period)
 800,000 military personnel serve in SEA
other than Vietnam
 Thailand, Cambodia, Laos
 1969 – more airmen in Thailand than
Vietnam

6. Herbicide Related Claims
 Substantial Literature
Vietnam Veterans of America – “Self Help
guide to Service Connected Disability
Compensation for Exposure to Agent
Orange
VVA Website (
www.vva.org/agent_orange.html)
VA website (www.public
health.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/index.
asp)

7. HERBICIDE USE
 Vietnam – Tactical use to expose enemy
activity. (Aerial spraying of wide area)
 Thailand – Defensive use to clear
vegetation on installation perimeter
 Thailand Rules of Engagement – could
defoliate only within base perimeters
 Applied directly on US installations

8. How Proof of Necessary Evidence
Established
 Three steps to Service Connection
Event in Service
Current Disability
Medical nexus between the two

9. MEETING EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS
 Vietnam – presumption of exposure if
boots on ground 1/9/62 – 5/7/75
 Thailand – No Broad Presumption
VA concedes some veterans were exposed
to herbicides
Special consideration for vets with duties
near or on the base perimeter.

10. Proving Exposure for Airmen
 Serving at following
RTAFBs
 U-Tapao
 Ubon
 Nakhon Phanon
 Udorn
 Takhli
 Korat
 Don Muang*
AND

11. Air Force Agent Orange Exposure
 AND
• as an Air Force:
− security policeman
− security patrol dog
handler
− member of the security
police squadron, or
• Otherwise near the air base
perimeter as shown by
evidence of daily work
duties, performance
evaluation reports, or other
credible evidence?

12. Army Serving at AF Bases
 The VA M21R, used to adjudicate
claims,used to state:
Must affirmatively state had duties near air
base perimeters.
But only if there is additional credible
evidence supporting statement.

13. Vets serving on Army Installations
 Members of military police units, OR
 Who held MP MOS, AND
 Who affirmatively state duties placed
them at or near base perimeter.
 statement showing involvement w/
fenced-in perimeter security duty, and
 additional credible evidence supporting
this statement

14. VA’s Confusion Between Presumption
and Direct Evidence
 Frequently VA will find lack of evidence
to apply the presumption and deny.
 Unavailability of presumption cannot
result in per se denial.
 Veteran has the opportunity to prove
exposure through Direct Evidence.

15. Presumption v. Direct Evidence
 Presumption requires “positive
association.” 38 U.S.C. §1116(b)(3)
 Direct Evidence requires “as likely as
not” test. 38 U.S.C. §5107(b)
 Stefl (21 Vet. App. 120 (2007)
availability of presumption for some
conditions cannot preclude direct
connection of others.

16. Legal Foundation for Your Argument
 Review available VA Legal Resources
Comp & Pen Service Bulletin May 2010
VA Fast Letter 09-20
M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1,
Section H 5: (
http://www.benefits.va.gov/warms/topic-compensation
)
BVA decisions – not precedential but can be
persuasive if fact patterns similar. See: 38
C.F.R. §20.1303 (
http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/bva.jsp)

17. Case law
 What is the veteran competent to tell
VA:
Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed.
Cir. 2007)
Buchanan, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir.
2006)
McLendon, 20 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2006)

18. Thailand Specific References
 CHECO Report – Base
Defense in Thailand
 Three Ring Defense
 Exterior perimeter
 Middle/secondary
 Close in
 Page 58 - mentions
herbicide use
 Page 64 – mentions
rapid jungle growth
 Page 67 – herbicides
could only be used
within perimeter.

19. Army Field Manual 3-3
Tactical Use of Herbicides (December
1971)
 Paragraph 5-2: Ground
Dissemination Systems
 Sub-Paragraph 5-2 (d)
states: “A 500 meter
buffer distance should
be maintained to avoid
damage to desirable
vegetation near the
target.”
 This is measured from
the point spraying
stopped.
 How about “desirable
personnel” near the
target?

20. Current Policy Flawed
 Limits covered personnel by duty
location and military specialty.
 Focuses on duties “near” the perimeter.
Term not defined.
 Ignores many other reasons to be “near”
perimeter.
 Some small bases, everywhere is “near”
the perimeter.

21. Proving Your Case
 Issue is not about presence in Thailand
 Issue is not about use of herbicides
 Issue IS about exposure, i.e. being near
the perimeter.

22. Evidence to gather
 Prepare specific
statement of
Veterans Duties
and Locations
 Buddy statements
(Statements of
other credible
evidence)
 Photos
 maps

23. You are your own historian
 Every service member in SEA bought:
A Seiko watch
A Stereo
And a CAMERA
 Go through old photos
 Have buddies go through old photos
 Search base/unit web pages
 Google a particular base

24. What to Look For
 Photos near the Perimeter
 Athletic/recreational areas. Many were
located on the outer edges of
installations.
 Evidence about off duty activities. Many
jogged on perimeter roads because it
was a good running path. (And no one
told us not to)

25. Korat Example
 Veteran served in
Korat from 74-75
 He was a food
services supervisor
 Lived near perimeter
 Coached softball to
the local children

28. RAMASUN STATION

29. RAMASUN DIAGRAM

30. RAMASUN Safe Zone

31. RAMASUN STATION

37. Downstream issues
 Rating
Scale from 0-100%
 Effective Dates
Date from which VA
starts paying the
claim

38. Ratings
 The rating system is designed to
compensate a veteran based on how
much time the veteran lost work due to
his disability
 38 CFR 4.1 states that a rating is correct
when it reflects the “loss of working time
from exacerbations or illnesses
proportionate to the severity of the
several grades of disability.”

39. Effective Date
 Rule: only go back to date that current
claim was filed
 In this situation, you can go back to the
date of the earliest claim filed for these
benefits
 VA admits that Checo report was not
available to veterans that previously had
filed clailms