Kenneth C. Hummel - Comment on AM74 Proposed Rule

I would like to submit a response to the proposed change for exposure to Dioxins to all US Navy Vietnam Veterans that may have been exposed during their service. It is my belief, that when the AO Act was set by Congress, that the issue we are dealing with was to avoid what is happening at this time to the denial of claims to any Veteran that very well could have been exposed to Dioxins. I would like to give you scenarios that can be used as a simple "Presumptive" explanation and allow the ruling of the Congress and the Courts of the Veterans Appeals that have been established, stand as was intended, and show why I oppose any rule change by the VA that is directed to denying US Navy personnel compensation for their disabilities connected to Dioxins and contaminants during their service. The issue of Blue Water Navy sailors that have served off the coastal waters of Vietnam being exposed is the purpose of this attempted change, but I ask that you consider and think about this statement. "If this attempted change was affecting any of your loved ones or even yourself, how would you consider this attempt to deny any Veteran that has served for our Nation and has been put in Harms Way unknowingly and after the fact?" The US Navy was a very instrumental part of the conflict of Vietnam, with many ships supporting the in country operation with travels up river, ports and coastal waters. At one time their was a 12 mile rule emplemented, and for most of the smaller vessels that served the coastal waters, it was neccessary to be within this range or less because of the distance their guns would reach. Now, I submit scenarios that are real, possible, and probable to the issue we are discussing about Presumptive Exposure, and please take the time and truly consider the possibilities and probabilities of these statements. (1) Many Navy vessels transported troops and equipment to and from the theatre of Vietnam, and knowing what we know today about the chemicals, the presumption can be very possible if any of the troops or equipment were also exposed to spay or contaminants at any time during this conflict, and with common sense understanding, this contaninant could very well have been brought onboard a vessel unknowingly to anyone at anytime. (2) Many troops brought onboard a vessel for any amount of time has had to have their clothing laundered by the ships laundry. This contaminant remained onboard, and was even discharged to the open waters. (3) Well documented proof that can not be denied or dismissed that AO was stored, used and exposed to many Naval and military personnel throughout our entire world, such a, Guam, Phillipines, Panama, Japan, Singaphore, and even our own United States Ports where any US Naval vessel have been after serving in the theatre of Vietnam and other ports throughout the world. Most every ship enroute to and from Vietnam stopped in Guam and most took on water from that Island. The contamination of that country is a very hot topic today as you all should be informed and updated about. The Phillipines, Subic Bay, Clark AFB was a major distribution center for all military and Naval operations of Vietnam. (4) Supplies, foods and mail were brought to ships in the gulf by helicopters in large bags and cargo nets. Most of these deliveries came in from DeNang where many of our ships also docked and anchored. Unless anyone can prove that any of the bags of mail, cargo nets, and any case of food had not touched ground during the entire war of Vietnam, then presumption would not be an issue. (5) Naval vessels have a tendancy to attach massive quantities of salt on the hull of a ship and all external bulkheads during operations. With this salt concentration, it is very likely and probable that anything that floats in the waters can become embedded in these salts, such as chemicals and so on. All ships conduct when available the opportunity to do fresh water wash downs, and many times these wash downs has water running in all directions of the ship carrying all contaminants with it. Also, the Navy takes pride of the cleanliness of the vessels and the continuing efforts by individuals having to repaint and clean by hand all parts of the ships under many situations and conditions. (6) All vessels must dump from their bilges the waste water wich is stored within the confines of the ship. Many times, these dumps have been in ports and many times the proof of this disharge is floating around the ship in the surrounding waters. And I will allow the reader to imagine what these floatation items may or may not be. The point here is that these dumps contaminate the waters, and the numerous amount of vessels that do this is a frightening thought to think what has come out of these bilges over so many years, and the amount of personnel that have been directly exposed to these contaminants. (7) The distalation process of making potable water from the waters of the Tonkin Gulf and inland waters has been a topic of discussion that is very real and very simple to understand how and why US Naval personnel could have been exposed. Military troops in country had indirect and direct exposure to the spray of dioxins, and for many of these individuals they may of had the opportunity to wash themselves after. For the US Navy personnel that may have been exposed due to the potable water distallation process, these individuals may have been exposed by the consumption of the foods and waters they ate and drank unknowlingly aware at that time that the possibilty of contaminants were present. This is called "Hind Sight", however the fact is known now that this was a very distinct possibility that it can not be ignored just to deny an individual due compensation by changeing the rules afterwards. (8) For the sailor that just reported to a ship that had recently returned from Vietnam, or even a vessel that had been there, and for whatever this individual has come down with any of the noted desease that is recognized by the VA for AO exposure. There is a very real possibilty that the proof that has been updated with water contamination and/or the transport of troops and equipment, or the many ports that have been proven to be contaminated, the real possibility that this individual was exposed and never saw the theatre of Vietnam is very real. He very well could have been exposed just due to the fact that any traces of this Dioxin was transported back to the United States. The containment of these contaminants have not been documented and insured by any means, such as the containment of the spray remained in the boundaries of the country of Vietnam. (9) For all Naval vessels that served in the waters of Vietnam, we all experienced the Typhoons and weather conditions, and as we all learned in school, mother nature plays a big part of our environment. Evaporation of the waters on ground delivers to the clouds above us, and are dispensed again during rains back to the ground. How can we ignore the facts of nature? I have given you many possible scenarios of how any of our Naval Personnel could have, and probably have been exposed to dioxins one way or another. And if one would truly consider the possibilities here mentioned, I ask one why these presumptive deseases acknowledged by the VA are so common in nature, and by so many of the same branch of service? Is there or is there not a possible connection by a common contaminant that has made many Americans that have served this Nation and have been promised to be taken care of for their service, so ill and disabled that the quality of life has been taken from them due to their commitment for their service? I truly submit this in objection to the change of the M21-1 manual as an opportunity for the VA to deny any Veteran for compensation and benefits that have been established by the VA and our Congress. The mentioned possible scenarios are real, and should not be ignored due to the fact that any and all of these imagineable situations could have and would have made anybody subjected to a contamination of this magnitude. This I believe was the intent of Congress when "Presumption of Exposure" was enacted in the AO Act. It appears that they may have very well understood at that time that the possibilty of exposure could have come from anywhere at anytime that made our Veterans vulnerable to these contaminants. The "Boots on Ground" ruling should be set aside as the courts have already ruled, and the commitment of the VA should be directed to ensuring that the Veterans of this Nation who have served should be duly taken care of, and the VA should honor their commitment rather than find a way to deny them for their service. I also submit this objection to the change of the M21-1 manuel and ask the VA to prove that any US Navy Veteran who served in the theatre of Vietnam was not exposed to contaminants, and to produce beyond any reasonable doubt evidence that shows that he or she could not have been exposed. The possible scenarios I have submitted should support any reasonable doubt that the exsposure of any United States Naval Personnel could have, and probably were exposed to these contaminats as a "Presumtion of Exposure" as directed by the United States Congress and the Agent Orange Act.