Edgar Rosas - Comment on AM74 Proposed Rule

Document ID: VA-2008-VBA-0014-0009
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Department Of Veterans Affairs
Received Date: April 24 2008, at 04:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Date Posted: April 28 2008, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: April 16 2008, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: June 16 2008, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 8052504b
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

My comments are submitted in response to Rim 2900-AM 74- Definition of Service in the Republic of Vietnam 1. Diabetes mellitus, type II, may be presumed to have been incurred in service secondary to herbicide exposure. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1116, 5102, 5103, 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2006). 2. Prostate cancer may be presumed to have been incurred in service secondary to herbicide exposure. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1116, 5102, 5103, 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2006). Simple law?, throw in: VAOPGCREC 27-97, 307(a)(6)(iii). 101(29] (A) In some circumstances, a disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents will be presumed to have been incurred in service even though there is no evidence of that disease during the period of service at issue. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e) (2006). In this regard, a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to a herbicide agent unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(f) (West 2002). I fail to see the intentions of Congress on the above ambigious and contradictory statues above. I will go on further to state that even those legislators who wrote these laws, probably don’t know what the intentions were. How can a Veteran navigate this system and get a claim approved fairly in this deliberate confusion. The only intention, I arrive at, is the intention to confuse, discourage, delay and deny The purpose of this is to Define Service in the Republic of Vietnam? Or to create even more confusion to an already overburden system with more claims piling up . What we need is a system that treats all Veterans equitably and with fairness. Where claim are approved or disapproved on merits. I’m referring to Blue Water Navy personnel, who performed on the waterways of the Republic of Vietnam. Our greatest generation, Blue Water Navy Personnel, would have been offended if called WWII Era veterans.

Related Comments

    View All
Total: 96
James E. LaPointe - Comment on AM74 Proposed Rule
Public Submission    Posted: 04/17/2008     ID: VA-2008-VBA-0014-0002

Jun 16,2008 11:59 PM ET
Gary Putinsky - Comment on AM74 Proposed Rule
Public Submission    Posted: 04/23/2008     ID: VA-2008-VBA-0014-0003

Jun 16,2008 11:59 PM ET
James E. Rigsby - Comment on AM74 Proposed Rule
Public Submission    Posted: 04/23/2008     ID: VA-2008-VBA-0014-0005

Jun 16,2008 11:59 PM ET
James W. Mahaffey - Comment on AM74 Proposed Rule
Public Submission    Posted: 04/23/2008     ID: VA-2008-VBA-0014-0006

Jun 16,2008 11:59 PM ET
Kenneth C. Hummel - Comment on AM74 Proposed Rule
Public Submission    Posted: 04/24/2008     ID: VA-2008-VBA-0014-0007

Jun 16,2008 11:59 PM ET